Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Gulf War Syndrome

Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on Gulf war syndrome.

Ivor Caplin: The Government continue to accept that some veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict have become ill, and that many believe that that ill health is unusual and is related to their Gulf experience. The Government's policy is to ensure that Gulf veterans have ready access to medical advice and all relevant information, while continuing to pursue appropriate research into the subject.

Ben Chapman: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position and congratulate him on it. He will be aware of the recent ruling of the High Court on Mr. Shaun Rusling, which determined that he was suffering from a range of symptoms directly attributed to his Gulf war service. Although that does not provide evidence of the existence of Gulf war syndrome as a single disease entity, it certainly provides recognition that people have suffered from a range of debilitating symptoms as a result of serving in the Gulf. Whether or not one accepts that Gulf war syndrome is a single entity, is it not the case that veterans suffering from such symptoms, so attributed, should be compensated appropriately without having to resort to the High Court?

Ivor Caplin: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcoming words. I am very pleased to be here this afternoon—[Interruption.] I told the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) that I would say that.
	Some commentators have suggested, since the High Court ruling, that the judgment will pave the way for thousands of new war pension claims. I must tell the House that that is wrong. In response to my hon. Friend's further question, compensation is provided by the war pensions scheme, and I can tell the House that, as at 31 December 2002—the latest date on which statistics were published—approximately 2,330 Gulf veterans were in receipt of a war disablement pension.

Andrew Murrison: How many veterans with Gulf war-related illness have fallen victim to so-called manning control by the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency, and what will the Minister do to remedy the injustice that they have suffered?

Ivor Caplin: I thought that we were having questions on the Government's policy on Gulf war syndrome. Let me say, however, that manning control points are an essential tool for controlling the manning structure of the Army, as the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will know.

Brian Iddon: May I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box, and in doing so pay a compliment to his predecessor, who dealt with this subject very conscientiously? If what the press reports say is true and people are already admitting that they are suffering illnesses as a result of the second conflict, will he assure the House that those will be studied carefully in comparison with the previous cohort, so that we can narrow down the possible causes of those illnesses?

Ivor Caplin: I reassure my hon. Friend that those involved in the recent conflict will of course be treated in exactly the same way.

Keith Simpson: May I, too, warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post as Under-Secretary of State for Defence? He is a great asset to the Department, and it is far better that he is in the Ministry of Defence than in a jobsworthy place such as the Department for Constitutional Affairs. May I also thank his predecessor and pay tribute to him for all the hard work that he did in that post? We are also grateful that the Secretary of State for Defence is still in place and not at the Department of Trade and Industry, where, as I understand it, a press release that was not released was going to put him.
	Will the Under-Secretary confirm that it is still the view of the Ministry of Defence that there is no such thing as Gulf war syndrome? Will he provide an estimate of the amount of compensation so far paid out? In addition, how much has research into Gulf war illness cost the Ministry of Defence?

Ivor Caplin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. May I say, as I said earlier, how pleased I am to be in the Ministry of Defence? My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are also very pleased to be in the Ministry of Defence and not in any other Department.
	The answer to the hon. Gentleman's initial question is yes. I want to go further by saying that the judge in the Shaun Rusling case was very clear about the matter. He did not rule on whether Gulf war syndrome exists; his judgment was very clear about that when he said:
	"This court is not in a position to express any views on the merits of the dispute as to whether, according to current medical research, Gulf War Syndrome is or is not a 'single medical entity'. It has not done so by this judgement."
	On the hon. Gentleman's other question about the amount spent on medical research, I do not know the exact details but I undertake to write to him in due course.

Weapons of Mass Destruction (Iraq)

Andrew Robathan: What progress has been made by British troops in Iraq in finding weapons of mass destruction.

Geoff Hoon: I begin by welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) to his new responsibilities at the same time as thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), both personally and on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, for his excellent work as a Minister, especially his work as the first Minister with overall responsibility for veterans.
	There are some 54 United Kingdom servicemen and women attached to the Iraq survey group. Over the next few weeks, the UK's contribution of military and civilian personnel will increase—[Hon. Members: "Wrong question."] I thought that the House would like to know, in terms of the progress being made—the subject of Question 3—the number of United Kingdom personnel attached to the Iraq survey group. By coincidence, that is the subject matter of Question 2.
	Investigation into Iraq's programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction remains a high priority for all coalition forces in Iraq. Elements of British forces are committed to this task as part of the Iraq survey group. Their priority—between 90 and 100 personnel—will be the search for weapons of mass destruction.

Andrew Robathan: The Secretary of State may know that I considered the action in Iraq to be justified on the grounds that the regime of Saddam Hussein was both illegitimate and barbaric. However, it was the Government who made weapons of mass destruction such a central plank of their policy. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that he has undermined the success in Iraq due to the lack of discovery of weapons of mass destruction? Those of us who want the action to be vindicated ask him to instigate a full judicial inquiry so that we may be quite certain that British troops were not sent to their deaths on a false premise.

Geoff Hoon: I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House of that fact. He implies that we are somehow responsible for our failure to find weapons of mass destruction. As I said in my answer a few moments ago, coalition forces are making a determined effort. I remind him that even by September 2002, having had many years in which to hide weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein rather surprisingly—as far as the international community was concerned—indicated that he would allow UN inspectors back into Iraq. There were approximately seven months between then and the start of hostilities during which he had plenty of opportunity to hide weapons of mass destruction. Since that time, about two and half months have elapsed, much of which has obviously been devoted to the initial aftermath of the conflict.
	Significant coalition forces are now in Iraq with a specific responsibility to investigate evidence of weapons of mass destruction. The hon. Gentleman would only be fair by recognising that Saddam Hussein had many more months in which to hide weapons of mass destruction—in an country with which he was familiar, after all—compared with the situation faced by coalition forces.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that that argument is losing credibility very quickly and that many people wonder why the UN weapons inspection team was not allowed back into Iraq at the end of hostilities and must be run by the United States and Britain? They also wonder why, if there were all these weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqi regime never used them.

Geoff Hoon: On my hon. Friend's last observation, clearly one of the reasons why the Iraqi regime did not use its weapons of mass destruction was that it was not given the opportunity owing to the excellent and rapid advance of coalition forces. I am slightly surprised to hear his observations because he is someone who, to his credit, consistently criticised Saddam Hussein's regime. I assume that he is not saying that the weapons did not exist and did not provide a threat to the security of the region and the wider world. That remains the reason why action was taken in support of the United Nations efforts.

Patrick Cormack: Does the Secretary of State accept that those of us who regret that Saddam Hussein has not yet been found believe he exists?

Geoff Hoon: I am always pleased to hear a quotation from my friend the Secretary of Defence for the United States.

David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend sometimes get the impression from the critics that because weapons of mass destruction have not yet been found, we should apologise to Saddam and ask him to come back and rule the country again? There are those of us who believe that what was done was absolutely justified, and evidence of terrible atrocities has now been found. Is it not time for both Britain and America to get a firmer grip on the situation in Iraq, ensure that essential services are restored and tell the people of Iraq—after all, it is their country—what we intend to do in the immediate future?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His approach to Saddam Hussein and the regime in Iraq is always forthright and robust. He is right that we need not only to continue the process of rebuilding that country but to make determined efforts, as we are doing, to restore that country to the control of its own people.

Edward Garnier: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is the potential for far quicker discovery of weapons of mass destruction if many of the troops currently deployed by the coalition, and by us in particular, are replaced to some extent by civilians? I have just returned from the Basra region in southern Iraq, which is largely safe. Does right hon. Gentleman regret the lack of progress made by, for example, the Department for International Development in deploying people there? Does he regret the failure of the Secretary of State for International Development to go there? I appreciate that I may be more expendable than a Secretary of State—[Hon. Members: "No."] It's the way I tell them. Does the Secretary of State not think that the civilian side of our Government should approach the work that it should be doing in southern Iraq with a little more urgency to free up military personnel to do military jobs?

Geoff Hoon: I am delighted that the hon. and learned Gentleman attracts so much support on the Opposition Benches. It might be regarded as yet another leadership bid.
	On the suggestion of changing coalition forces, had I been given a greater opportunity earlier, I would have said not only that the Iraq survey group is a military group, but that it consists of a number of civilians with particular investigative skills. In a sense, therefore, the process that the hon. and learned Gentleman outlines is occurring as we reduce the number of military personnel in Iraq, especially those who have had recent combat experience, and replace them with fresh troops and, in particular, civilians who are dedicated to the task of reconstruction, as he advocates.

Malcolm Savidge: Does my right hon. Friend give any credence to the suggestions of President Bush about weapons of mass destruction and looters? If he does, should we not, at least in British-controlled areas, be urgently seeking the assistance of the UN inspectors to try to reduce the risk of black market sales to terrorists?

Geoff Hoon: I am aware of at least one incident in which equipment thought to contain the elements of a biological or chemical weapon was looted, although the looters were clearly more interested in the fridge than in its contents. So there is some evidence for what the President has set out, but such incidents largely relate to the early days and the immediate aftermath of the conflict. As hon. Members said, the situation in the southern area in particular, for which the United Kingdom has responsibility, is largely calm at present.

Bernard Jenkin: May I tell the Secretary of State that we believe that it is too early to say whether weapons of mass destruction will, or will not, be found? However, that search has exposed issues relating to the presentation of the Government's intelligence material on weapons of mass destruction that go to the heart of the debate about the integrity of Government. Now that we have seen a dramatic climbdown by the Government in this morning's announcement that Mr. Alastair Campbell will, after all, give evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, does not that serve only to strengthen the case for the full and independent judicial inquiry that the Prime Minister continues to resist?
	Moreover, in three weeks' time the House will rise for a two-month summer recess. Will the Government come to the House before then to give a full account of progress in the search for Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction? If there is nothing to add by that time, will not the case for a full inquiry be even stronger? How else can the Government restore public faith in their handling of the security services now that no one believes a word they say?

Geoff Hoon: I was curious about the hon. Gentleman's opening proposition that it is too early to say—perhaps it is too early to say what his policy is on these matters, as he seems to change it according to circumstance. I must tell the House, in case it escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice, that I do not have ministerial responsibility for Mr. Campbell, so I am not in a position to deal with that matter. As for the hon. Gentleman's final observation, I was slightly surprised by his suggestion that he would prefer a judicial inquiry to one conducted by right hon. and hon. Members in the House of Commons. If that really is his position, he needs to articulate it more clearly.

US Defence Procurement Policy

Huw Irranca-Davies: If he will make a statement on the impact of US defence procurement policy on the UK defence industry.

Adam Ingram: The United States is the second largest market for United Kingdom defence products, and US defence procurement policy impacts very directly on the UK defence industry. At present, the US spends only about 2.5 per cent. of its procurement budget overseas, and UK industry has succeeded in securing half of that business, worth £1 billion a year. We are working with UK industry and the US Government to widen the scope for the involvement of our industry in American procurement, and we believe that that will be to the advantage of both. A more open and transparent defence market will serve our joint goals of better value for money and developing an efficient and innovative defence industry.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the Minister for his expansive answer, but he will be aware that a Bill on defence authorisation is quietly slipping through Congress. Its provisions, the White House says, are
	"burdensome, counterproductive, and have the potential to degrade U.S. military capabilities."
	Moreover, it threatens the joint strike fighter programme if passed in its current form, affecting £200 billion-worth of the programme and thousands of jobs both here and internationally. Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the US Administration to make sure that that Bill is amended accordingly?

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. My earlier answer showed the importance of US defence procurement to UK industry, and we are always trying to improve our export capabilities, not just into that market but elsewhere. Because of those important considerations, we do make representations of the type that my hon. Friend asked about, but it is not just about selling equipment; it is about ensuring that there is interoperability between NATO's defence forces, and the open market is the best way to achieve that.

Colin Breed: May we, too, add our welcome to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), in his new ministerial post, and add our tribute to his predecessor for all his work? We also congratulate the Government on the progress that they have made with the US Administration on supporting defence sales between our countries. However, with only one major domestic defence contractor left, does the Minister agree that it is important that the Government ensure that BAE Systems continues to be independent and is not vulnerable to an international takeover or merger, thus ensuring that true international competition will continue?

Adam Ingram: It is not strictly true, whatever the hon. Gentleman says, that there is only one major defence company left, as 150,000 jobs in this country are tied up in defence. I do not know whether he was ruling out Rolls-Royce or whether it is the company that he was referring to. I do not know whether he was ruling out Thales, a major defence presence in this country. I do not know which major company he was referring to. However, I welcome his recognition of what we are doing to ensure that we fully exploit our relationship with the US in the marketplace to the best advantage of our economy and the US economy as well. However, we must also bear in mind the need to ensure that our equipment has an interoperative capability, which serves us all well in NATO and elsewhere.

John Smith: One organisation that successfully secured American procurement work is the Defence Aviation Repair Agency, which repairs components for Apache helicopters. Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that that organisation attracts more work, especially in the run-up to the completion of the Red Dragon project, and will he agree to meet me to discuss ways of achieving that for DARA?

Adam Ingram: I fully recognise the strong role played by my hon. Friend in promoting the cause of DARA. As the sole owner, in technical terms, of that organisation, I well understand the points that he makes. DARA has been successful in securing commercial contracts. The establishment of the trading fund provided that opportunity, and I pay tribute to the management and staff of DARA for all that they have achieved. The Red Dragon project represents a clear commitment to the future, and I was pleased to be able to agree to those proposals. Yes, I will meet my hon. Friend to discuss these matters, if he wishes, sooner rather than later.

Gerald Howarth: Given British Aerospace's view that the Government's defence industrial policy does it few favours, and last week's warning from the Society of British Aerospace Companies that that world-beating industry faces a further 15,000 job losses on top of the 20,000 that it suffered last year, what has the Prime Minister done to use his influence to secure a dividend from the United States for British support for the US on Iraq, by obtaining better access for British defence exports to the US? Is not the least that we can expect that he should resist the legislation mentioned by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)? While we are speaking of defence procurement, can the Minister tell us what the Government will do in the event that British Aerospace decides that its only future is to be swallowed up by a US company?

Adam Ingram: We shall have to take each step as it comes in responding to any change in the defence marketplace in terms of individual companies and possible amalgamations. The national interest would, of course, be uppermost in our mind in any future restructuring. That must be considered when assessing any future relationship. The hon. Gentleman should know that the measure to which he referred is known as the ITAR—international trade and arms regulations—waiver. Considerable progress has been made on that, but not as much as we would have liked, because matters intervened: first, the change of Administration and the need to build new relationships; secondly, the Afghanistan conflict; and then the Iraq conflict, which tied up a significant number of people. However, four of the seven key principles have now been signed off, and I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will continue to bring whatever influence he can to bear with the US Administration to ensure the future of the British economy.

Shoeburyness Ranges

Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on the future use of the new ranges in Shoeburyness.

Ivor Caplin: The Shoeburyness ranges are included in the long-term partnering agreement that has been negotiated with QinetiQ for the delivery of a long-term test and evaluation capability to the Ministry of Defence.

Teddy Taylor: I offer my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Has he had time to consider the impact of the many changes that have occurred in Shoeburyness recently, including the privatisation of the range facilities, the removal of MOD police from Foulness and the proposed house building on part of the site? Would he consider making time available in his busy diary to meet the military and civil defence staff there, and also representatives of the local community, in what I think he will appreciate is one of the most unique and significant MOD sites in the country?

Ivor Caplin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcoming words. I can tell him that QinetiQ security service now oversees site security and may work, where necessary, in conjunction with both Essex police and Ministry of Defence police. As for a meeting, I shall be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, but I cannot undertake to do so in the immediate future because of the pressures on my diary in these first few days.

Territorial Army

James Gray: How many Territorial Army soldiers were deployed on Operation Telic; and how many are still in Iraq.

Geoff Hoon: A total of 4,592 Territorial Army personnel have been deployed on Operation Telic, both at home bases in the United Kingdom and in the Gulf region. Currently 1,400 TA personnel remain in the Gulf region.

James Gray: I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the outstanding contribution that the Territorial Army made to Operation Telic—a contribution that can only be enhanced by the arrival of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who was called out today.
	When I was in the region last week, one brigade commander told me that during Operation Telic 14 per cent. of his troops had been TA troops. That level has now risen to 25 per cent., which must be evidence for the fact that TA soldiers are being kept out there for longer than their regular counterparts. The Secretary of State will know that, under the Reserve Forces Act 1996, if a TA soldier has been called up for six months or longer, he may not be called up again for a further three years. Given that that is the case, what will he do if he requires those soldiers' skills again before 2006?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous and appropriate tribute to members of the TA, who made an outstanding contribution in Iraq and continue to do so. We anticipated that contribution in the strategic defence review and it has fully vindicated the policy that it set out.
	As to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that TA personnel were remaining in theatre for longer than their regular counterparts, with one or two notable exceptions, that is simply not the case. The exceptions are largely in the medical field. When regular forces have returned to the United Kingdom, the associated TA soldiers have done so as well. As to the future, we obviously did not call out all members of the TA for the operation. Should there be a requirement for a major operation in future, we will obviously have plenty of people to call upon should it be necessary to do so.

Sandra Osborne: I have a constituent who was called up by the TA on 21 January and is currently serving in the Gulf. He has yet to receive his £1,200 annual bounty and neither he nor apparently any of his regiment have received their £150-a-month separation allowance. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an unacceptable way of treating our troops, and that it is bringing undue financial pressure on their families? I have passed on the individual details and I hope that he will investigate the matter urgently, but can he inform the House whether it is a general problem?

Geoff Hoon: I am not aware that it is a general problem, but if my hon. Friend lets me have the particular details, I shall ensure that they are investigated as a matter of urgency.

Julian Brazier: In praising my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who is on his way to the Gulf, I should declare an interest to the House, as I shall be eating a dinner on his behalf in October.
	Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne), does the Secretary of State accept that the best way of ensuring healthy reserve forces is for the Ministry of Defence to deal with the units concerned in organising its call-out arrangements, rather than sending out central memorandums like some sort of credit agency? Does he accept that, in organising those arrangements, there is a huge difference in standards between different parts of the Army and the other two forces? For example, the Royal Marines and Royal Engineers get it right, while the infantry directorate is arguably the worst.

Geoff Hoon: I am certainly willing to consider those arrangements. If the hon. Gentleman has specific details about where he believes there were problems, they will be investigated as part of the process that we are undertaking to learn lessons from this deployment. In preparing for the conflict in the Gulf, I had the opportunity to visit Chilwell, the centre for call-out. In speaking to a great number of people from the Territorial Army and the reservists, I did not come across the sort of complaints that he mentions. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work done by Chilwell on behalf of the TA and reservists. I look to the future and to ensuring that, if there are problems with the arrangements, we get them right.

Harry Cohen: Will the Secretary of State consider sending some of the Territorials to look at the mobile labs in the form of two trailers in northern Iraq? A report in The Observer on 15 June said that the system was originally sold by a British company, Marconi, as a command and control system. If any Territorials investigated the trailers, would they find a "Made in Britain" stamp on them? If this is a smoking gun in terms of weapons of mass destruction, why did we apparently sell them?

Geoff Hoon: I do not think that anyone suggested that this was an example of a smoking gun. It has rightly been suggested that this was a gun and that the mobile laboratories were wholly consistent with the description of mobile laboratories given by Secretary of State Colin Powell in his evidence to the United Nations Security Council. That remains the position as far as coalition forces are concerned.

Nicholas Soames: May I warmly endorse the words of the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends about the distinguished and admirable service of which the TA have yet again proved themselves capable in the Gulf? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that however good the TA and the rest of our soldiers are, unless there is a very significant improvement in the internal security situation in Iraq, all the hopes we have for the improvement of the lives of ordinary people living in Iraq will come to naught? Must we not reassess whether there are enough troops on the ground; whether we need to put some more troops into Baghdad; and whether we should call Lord Ashdown back from Bosnia and ask him to sit alongside Paul Bremer to see what he can do to help?

Geoff Hoon: As I understand it, Lord Ashdown is to meet Paul Bremer in due course, and no doubt they will have some interesting conversations about the similarities between the situation in the early days in Bosnia and the current situation in Iraq. I counsel the hon. Gentleman against assuming that the isolated incidents in certain parts of the suburbs of Baghdad mean that there is widespread disorder right across Iraq. That is simply not the case. There are obviously elements who are continuing to resist coalition forces, and they are being dealt with, but it is by no means a generalised problem across Iraq. Indeed, the security situation in Iraq is largely good and improving.

Glenda Jackson: How many members of the Territorial Army are engaged in the search for weapons of mass destruction? If it is the Government's case that those weapons have been hidden, have they engaged in any estimate of the number and type of vehicles necessary to transport such massive armaments?

Geoff Hoon: I do not have the figures on whether any members of the Territorial Army are currently engaged in the search for weapons of mass destruction, but if so they will be very small in number. Nevertheless, it is important that we continue that search.
	I would counsel my hon. Friend against the suggestion that we are necessarily looking for a massive stock of, for example, chemical or biological weapons. A very small quantity of a biological agent could easily destroy the population of a major city. We are searching not for a large weapon, but for an enormously dangerous one. I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that.

Bernard Jenkin: I join in the tributes paid to the Territorial Army, especially to the TA call-out centre at Chilwell. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that there were many problems with the call-out, and that he will wish to address them rather than to dismiss them.
	Last week, a TA commanding officer told me that one third of his battalion would remain fully mobilised for the foreseeable future. That perhaps reflects the comments by Major General Freddie Viggers—the senior officer serving in the US military command headquarters in Baghdad—who said that British forces would be in Iraq for at least another four years. Given that, and the increased demands on the TA for security measures at home, has not the Government's decision to cut the TA by 18,000 soldiers in 1998 turned out to be reckless, short-sighted and irresponsible, as we warned at the time?

Geoff Hoon: Not only did I not dismiss the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) earlier: I said that I would consider them. It is important to get it right. As for the suggestion that British forces will be there for as long as four years, various people have made various estimates, but the Government's ambition is to be able to remove British forces from Iraq as soon as the security situation allows it and as soon as the Iraqi people can take responsibility for their own affairs. I paid my tribute to the TA, and I want an expanding TA to continue to provide that kind of contribution to our regular forces.

Missile Defence

Hugh Bayley: What recent discussions he has had with the Governments of (a) Canada and (b) Denmark about UK policy on strategic missile defence.

Geoff Hoon: I discussed a number of issues, including missile defence, with my Danish counterpart in Copenhagen on 8 April. I have had no recent discussions on missile defence with my Canadian counterpart.

Hugh Bayley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern that is being expressed by people in Denmark and around RAF Fylingdales in North Yorkshire about the environmental consequences of missile defence, especially the medical consequences of phased-array radar, which have been widely reported in the local media in Yorkshire and on the BBC's "Look North"? Can my right hon. Friend tell me what advice he has sought from the National Radiological Protection Board about those risks and what advice he can give to people in North Yorkshire about their nature?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I am aware of the claims to which he refers. We have not seen any evidence that phased-array radar emissions at levels below those considered safe by the relevant scientific and medical authorities can harm the health of human beings or livestock. The claims are apparently based on material emanating from the United States, and we await the results of studies being made there. However, the weight of current scientific and medical evidence does not in any way support those claims.

Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State agree that it makes better sense to have a missile defence system in place in an era in which we are concerned about rogue regimes with potentially small numbers of missiles than it might have done during a cold war confrontation when we were dealing with a superpower with very large numbers of missiles? When he discusses these important issues with our NATO allies, what consideration does he give to the financing of any such project in the future? Is it a question of discussing with them how best to co-operate with our American allies on a project that they will finance, or would we have to make a significant financial contribution—and if so, could we afford to do so?

Geoff Hoon: We have not come to any specific decisions on whether to pursue missile defence for the United Kingdom, but at the Prague summit last November, all our NATO allies clearly demonstrated that we were committed to examining options to address the increasing missile threat. The question of finance has not yet been specifically addressed, and it need not be until there is agreement as to how to go forward in this area. We have, however, been able to agree a framework memorandum of understanding with the United States, which sets out the guiding principles governing co-operation between the United States and the United Kingdom on missile defence. Obviously, one of the aspects that we have to consider further is the cost, and who should meet that cost.

Machrihanish RAF Base

Alan Reid: If he will make a statement on his Department's plans for the former RAF base at Machrihanish.

Ivor Caplin: The base is being retained on a care and maintenance basis, pending a review of possible military requirements for the site.

Alan Reid: I thank the Minister for that answer and congratulate him on his appointment. May I draw to his attention the fact that, if the plans to cease to support military training at Machrihanish in September go ahead, high-quality training facilities will be lost? As Kintyre is a remote peninsula with high unemployment, it would be very difficult for the civilian workers who would be made redundant to find alternative employment. In view of these factors, will the Minister reconsider the penny-pinching decision to stop the training at Machrihanish? Will he, for example, discuss with the local enterprise company the possibility of putting together a financial package to save the training facilities? I noticed the Minister's willingness to meet people from Shoeburyness; may I invite him to make the trip to Machrihanish to see for himself the excellent facilities there?

Ivor Caplin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcoming remarks. He will be aware that the Ministry of Defence is continuing to work closely with the local authority and the local enterprise company to develop the capacity that might become surplus to requirements at Machrihanish, including any land or buildings, for alternative uses. The site was originally declared surplus to military requirements and transferred to Defence Estates for disposal on 1 April 2000, but a decision on whether the site is surplus to future requirements remains some way off; it is too early to say.

Iraq

Linda Gilroy: If he will make a statement on the contribution which the armed services based in the south-west of England (a) made and (b) continue to make to coalition operations in Iraq.

Adam Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to the good work that was and continues to be done in Iraq by armed forces personnel based in the south-west of England, and by all our servicemen and women.
	From Plymouth, HMS Ocean, with supporting vessels from the amphibious task group, was instrumental in supporting the crucial early landing of 3 Commando Brigade on the al-Faw peninsula. In addition, Royal Marine commandos were involved in securing the port of Umm Qasr, through which all subsequent seaborne aid has been channelled. HMS Chatham remains in the Gulf. Other units based in the south-west of England also played an important role in Iraq, including Royal Marines from Taunton, and Royal Naval air squadrons from Culdrose and Yeovilton.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He describes a number of roles of which the service personnel and their families can rightly be proud. In respect of those families, he might recollect that, during questions on the statement to the House on Iraq on 21 March, I raised a question about media intrusion at the time of the first casualties arising from the conflict.
	I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has had time to note that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport published its report last week on its investigation into privacy and media intrusion. The recommendation at paragraph 72 says:
	"We recommend that the PCC, under its new Chairman, considers the case for taking a more consistent approach to foreseeable events that herald intense media activity and people in grief and shock; and for acting as soon as possible after unexpected disasters have occurred."
	Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he plays his part in ensuring that that recommendation is fully followed through?

Adam Ingram: I do indeed recollect my hon. Friend raising that particular matter. A number of servicemen connected to the south-west lost their lives or were injured while deployed on operations in Iraq. Our thoughts remain with them and their families. Sadly, there were too many examples of the press stepping over lines of common decency, or failing to respect the feelings of those who had just lost loved ones. I have read the recommendations in the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report published last Monday. That is an interesting comment. It is also interesting that Christopher Meyer, the new chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, has indicated that that is the type of case that he would be open to dealing with. If anything can be done to ensure that the press act responsibly at all times when they deal with victims and those who may lose their lives in conflict, I think we will all applaud it.

Hugo Swire: No mention of the disproportionate part played by the armed forces in the south-west would be complete without acknowledging yet again the professionalism and dedication of the staff at commando training camp Lympstone. Equally important is an acknowledgment of the very important part played by the Royal Marines Reserve, 150 of whom were deployed recently in Iraq. However, there seems to be some discrepancy among public sector employers in releasing royal marine reservists for their annual training, which is critical if they are to play their part fully as we call on them to do from time to time. As part of his review following recent events in Iraq, will the Minister look carefully at how we can convince public sector employers throughout the country to approach the release of Royal Marine Reservists in the same way, without discriminating against some of them, which unfortunately has been the case in the past?

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. I was not aware of the specifics, but in the recent debate on personnel matters we dealt with the impact on individual reservists and those in the Territorial Army, and the relationship with their employers, and I stressed the importance of ensuring that employers are fully aware of the role that reservists play and engage with it. It is in their interests as well as in the national interest that those actions are taken. I will ensure that those sentiments are expressed to them. If there are any particular problems, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman brought them to my attention and that of my hon. Friends. We will do what we can to ensure that that is fully complied with. I echo his sentiments about the crucial role played by training encampments and the Royal Marine Reserves.

Procurement

Peter Viggers: If he will make a statement on the procurement orders for (a) tanks and (b) combat aircraft.

Adam Ingram: The Challenger 2 is a world-class battle-winning tank which performed successfully in operations in Iraq. It is planned to remain in service until at least 2025. No replacement programme is yet under consideration.
	Current combat aircraft procurement programmes are those for the joint strike fighter, the Typhoon and the attack helicopter. While no final decisions have yet been taken, we expect to purchase 150 of the short take-off and vertical landing variant of the JSF. The Typhoon is in production and the UK will receive 55 aircraft from the first tranche. Orders from the second or third tranches will be made in due course. There are 67 Apache attack helicopters on order. In addition, on 10 June, the Royal Air Force took delivery of the last of its 142 Tornado GR4s—a major upgrade programme—which performed extremely well in recent operations in Iraq.

Peter Viggers: In view of the need to reshape the armed forces to take account of the changing military and terrorist threat, and of the need to acquire new equipment such as the proposed two aircraft carriers and the joint strike fighter, how confident can we be that Government will continue with and complete the purchase of equipment originally planned for the defence of the central plain of Europe in the 1980s?

Adam Ingram: A White Paper will be published in the autumn. Of course, many of these issues have to be addressed as we look to the future, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman await publication of that White Paper, which will undoubtedly spark his interest and that of many other Members.

Vincent Cable: Given the history of cost overruns on the helicopter contract and other contracts, why is the Department proposing to disregard the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury that it could save £1 billion if the forthcoming contract for training jets were opened up to international competitive tendering?

Adam Ingram: We recognise that the Hawk has an excellent track record and remains a world leader in its field. We have spent the past few weeks assessing the BAE Systems proposal and consulting others across government, including the Treasury. We need to determine whether the proposal meets our military requirements and offers value for money for the taxpayer. There is great awareness of the importance of our decision and its impact on jobs and manufacturing in the United Kingdom, but we have undertaken to reach a decision by the end of this month, which is not far away. That remains our intention.

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Bill Wiggin: What (a) inoculations and (b) preventive medicines have been given to UK troops deploying to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Adam Ingram: In my oral statement to the House on 12 June, I said that we would finalise the exact number of engineering personnel to be deployed to the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the basis of further detailed analysis of the engineering tasks required in Bunia. I can now tell the House that this work has been completed, and we intend to send about 70 Royal Engineers to assist in improving Bunia airfield. With support staff and headquarters-based officers, total deployment will be in the region of 85 personnel.
	In answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question, all troops deploying to the Democratic Republic of the Congo are to be inoculated against vaccine-preventable endemic diseases such as hepatitis A, tuberculosis and yellow fever. Appropriate anti-malaria tablets and any necessary booster vaccinations will be provided before deployment. In addition, deploying troops will be briefed on preventive measures that they should take when in theatre.

Bill Wiggin: I thank the Minister for that answer, which he has clearly thought about very carefully since last week, when he was a little more vague in what he was telling us. Will he now make it very clear that he knows exactly what the troops' mission is?

Adam Ingram: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I made my statement last week—I made it the week before. On the question of being vague, I did tell the House that there was a requirement for a recce team to report back. It has now done so, and I have given a response. If the hon. Gentleman were truly interested in this issue, he would surely have read United Nations Security Council resolution 1484, which sets out the precise nature of the mission. It is
	"to contribute to the stabilization of the security conditions and the improvement of the humanitarian situation in Bunia, to ensure the protection of the airport, the internally displaced persons in the camps in Bunia and, if the situation requires it to contribute to the safety of the civilian population, UN personnel and the humanitarian presence in the town".
	That will be the role and the mission of the EU-led troops.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister for his earlier reply and reference to the 70 or so Royal Engineers being deployed to the Congo. However, a cursory look at history shows what a hugely dangerous theatre this part of Africa is, particularly for British soldiers. Is it wise that our soldiers should be going without any combat elements themselves, particularly given that they have to depend on French forces to defend them?

Adam Ingram: I would not want to rise too readily to that last comment. Given the hon. Gentleman's military background, he surely ought to know just how highly our armed forces rate the French armed forces and their capabilities. This is a very specific mission for our Royal Engineers, who will have supporting troops; in any case, all are trained in self-defence and the use of their own weapons. The mission will take place over a specific time scale in order to achieve the objective of opening up the airfield, which will hopefully allow other support to come in from the United Nations. That will lead to what we all hope will prove to be the eventual stabilisation of an undoubtedly very troubled region.

Wind Farms

David Chaytor: What assessment he has made of the impact of offshore wind farms on MOD radar systems; and if he will make a statement.

Ivor Caplin: Ministry of Defence officials are involved with the Department of Trade and Industry, the Civil Aviation Authority, National Air Traffic Services and the British Wind Energy Association in a group that is addressing the effects on radar of both onshore and offshore wind turbines.

David Chaytor: I thank the Minister for his reply, but how long is it likely to take before that group reaches a firm conclusion about the impact on radar of offshore wind farms, and why does it not seem to be a problem for other European countries? What is the difference between British radar systems and those of other European countries?

Ivor Caplin: I know that my hon. Friend has a long history of asking questions on these matters. I can assure him and the House that every proposal received by the Ministry of Defence is given a full appraisal by at least seven separate technical advisers, each with their own specialism. The test is case-by-case consideration of the effect of proposed developments on the ability to train our pilots safely and also their effect on operational capability.

Henry Bellingham: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment, but is he aware that both the Crown Estate and the Atomic Energy Authority have made applications for many offshore wind turbines on the Wash and off the Norfolk coast. What evaluations have been made of the potential impact of those turbines on Ministry of Defence radar and on the RAF bombing range in the Wash?

Ivor Caplin: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all those matters are taken into consideration. That is why we are making assessments. I can also tell the House that, of the 200 applications for offshore wind farm proposals received between November 1996 and last month, the Ministry of Defence only objected to 37 on safety grounds.

Procurement

Ian Liddell-Grainger: If he will make a statement on the procurement of ordnance by the armed forces.

Adam Ingram: The majority of conventional ammunition is procured under a framework partnering agreement with Royal Ordnance Defence, which covers the supply of ordnance and ammunition sub-systems, including propellant. Other weapons are procured on the basis of smart acquisition procedures to obtain the best value for money for the taxpayer, meet the requirements of the armed forces, and ensure security of supply.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: BAE Systems faces a situation in which General Dynamics and other companies are looking to acquire ordnance provision. What will the Minister do about the security of supply of the procurement of ordnance in this country, given that it could be owned in future by an American company? Are there any plans to deal with the problem if that were to happen?

Adam Ingram: I have given an earlier indication about how we would have to deal with such matters. We would have to look into the likely arrangements in the event of a merger, amalgamation or takeover and its consequent impact on the national interest. Matters would have to be dealt with at that time, based on the new relationships between the companies.

Strategic Technologies

Michael Jack: If he will make a statement on the technologies which his Department has assessed as being of strategic importance to the future effectiveness of the UK's defence forces.

Adam Ingram: The Ministry of Defence has well-defined processes for identifying key technologies to support the United Kingdom's military capability. Examples of these have been enshrined in the defence technology centres, which involve collaboration with industry and will be used to bring technology forward. The MOD is continuously reviewing wider science and technology to assess the impact for defence.

Michael Jack: May I express disappointment in the Minister's answer? He did not expressly state that the maintenance of a UK aerospace capability was central to our future defence needs. In the light of discussions said to be taking place about the future of BAE Systems and an American partner, what steps would the Department take, in the event of such a marriage occurring, to ensure that Britain maintained a proper military aerospace capability of its own?

Adam Ingram: That is the third time I have been asked that question, and I have nothing further to add to what I said earlier.

Security Threats

Cheryl Gillan: If he will make a statement on the armed forces' military preparedness to deal with security threats to the UK.

Adam Ingram: The involvement of the armed forces in counter-terrorism and civil protection was reviewed following the events of 11 September 2001 and enhanced as part of the development of the new chapter of the strategic defence review. Their role is to act in support of the police and other emergency services. A range of robust contingency plans for responding to a wide range of terrorist threats continues to be regularly exercised, tested, reviewed and refined in the light of changing domestic and international circumstances.

Cheryl Gillan: Reports in the press at the weekend suggest that we are not prepared to deal with the security threats. Would the Minister care to deny or confirm those reports?

Adam Ingram: I do not know which reports the hon. Lady is referring to, but if she cares to pass me copies, I shall be able to comment on their accuracy or otherwise.

European Council

Tony Blair: With permission, Mr Speaker. I shall make a statement on the European Council, which I attended in Greece on 19 and 20 June. I should like to offer my thanks to Prime Minister Simitis and the Greek Government, who have conducted an effective presidency in a particularly difficult period.
	The European Council took delivery of the draft constitutional treaty prepared by the European Convention under the expert chairmanship of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. We agreed that the draft is a good basis for starting the intergovernmental conference in October. The 10 countries joining the European Council will participate fully alongside the existing member Governments. The aim is to conclude it in time for a new treaty to be signed after 1 May next year.
	The Convention sets out clearly what Europe is for, its aims and objectives, the rights of its citizens, the powers and responsibilities of its institutions and the way it takes forward its policies. It recognises expressly that what we want is a Europe of nations, not a federal superstate, and that issues to do with taxation, foreign policy, defence policy and our own British borders will remain the prerogative of our national Government and Parliament.
	The draft makes clear in the very first article that the Union only has those powers that member states give it. It introduces a Chair of the European Council to prepare and follow through the European Council agenda. It will bring an end to the present system of six-monthly presidencies, which is no longer feasible in a Union of 25. It will provide a greater role for national Parliaments, which will be able to vet all new legislation and make the principle of subsidiarity work at the political level.
	There are of course areas where there is continuing negotiation—for example, over enhanced co-operation, the structure of the presidency and the role of qualified majority voting—but above all the new draft treaty offers the prospect of stability in the way in which Europe works.
	I should like to pay tribute to the work done by Ministers and to other hon. Members, for the contribution that they made to the work of the Convention. In addition to the Convention outcome, reflecting the work of its 200 members, Mr Giscard d'Estaing also referred to a minority report put forward in the Convention, including by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), the representative of the Conservative party. That report would turn the existing treaties into an association of states that would replace, and dismantle, the existing European Union.
	The European Council agreed a range of actions to secure our frontiers, to ensure better co-operation with third countries on migration issues and to enable us to take the action we need to deal more effectively with asylum claims. Among the issues that we discussed was one on which we have been working closely with the European Commission and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The aim is to strengthen the protection of refugees in their regions of origin so that, in a crisis, it is possible to offer effective and accessible sanctuary to refugees closer to their homes. To test whether such a scheme can work, we—with the support of the Commission—proposed pilot projects, which had widespread support. While the unanimity requirement in the Council prevented the idea from being specifically endorsed, that will not prevent the pilot projects from being taken forward by a number of member states and the Commission will report back on them within the year.
	The Council discussed a paper by the EU High Representative, Javier Solana, for an overall strategy in the field of foreign and security policy. He proposed a comprehensive approach to dealing with the global problems of poverty, terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction, stressing the importance of the relationship with the United States, the need to improve our military capability and the necessity, in the last resort, for pre-emptive military action. The Council endorsed a comprehensive plan for tackling the spread of weapons of mass destruction. This will be a particular theme of this week's EU-US summit as we take forward our joint work on curbing the export of WMD. The summit will also focus on the trade and economic agenda, especially the need for a successful meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Cancun, and foreign policy co-operation, notably in the middle east.
	President Chirac and I had proposed, following the G8 summit, that the EU should match the US by contributing up to Euro1 billion in 2004 to the global health fund to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Although this had majority support, some member states objected and, because of the unanimity requirement, we could not secure agreement at the Council to that sum, but we did agree that the Union would determine the extent of its contribution at the pledging conference on 16 July.
	There was a strong focus at the meeting on the EU's relations with the wider world. Putting our support behind the middle east peace process, we called on Hamas and other groups to declare a ceasefire and endorsed an urgent examination of the case for wider action against Hamas fundraising. We expressed serious concern at aspects of the Iranian nuclear programme and our full support for the International Atomic Energy Agency in its effort to conduct a comprehensive examination of Iran's nuclear programme. We made it clear that the way in which Iran behaves on human rights, terrorism and the middle east peace process is crucial to the future development of EU-Iran relations.
	Finally, we held a positive discussion about Iraq. The European Council affirmed the European Union's readiness to take part in the reconstruction of Iraq within the framework of UN Security Council resolution 1483. We commissioned further work on the details of the help that the EU can provide.
	The Council took stock of the economic situation following the spring summit on economic reform. It set a clear agenda for action in line with the objectives, which Britain and a number of other member states have been advocating.
	The Council also endorsed the appointment of Jean-Claude Trichet as the next President of the European Central Bank, in accordance with the agreement reached during the last UK presidency.
	What is clear is that Europe at 25 nations will be very different from Europe at 15. In the coming years, Europe will expand still further to welcome Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and possibly others. Plainly, this means that Europe must change the way it works. There are several areas in which the Convention proposes moving to qualified majority voting, including on trade in services and in the fight against terrorism, drugs and illegal immigration. We should not, however, fear every extension of qualified majority voting as hostile to Britain. In some areas, we need QMV. The only reason we have any hope of achieving reform in, for example, the common agricultural policy is that decisions in the Agriculture Council are determined by QMV. It was thanks to QMV that we opened up energy markets. If we want to drive through economic reform, liberalise markets, and break down state subsidies, then, in a Europe of 25, QMV on such issues as trade in services and mutual recognition of qualifications is essential for the British national interest. Britain needs Europe to work and, for Europe to work, it needs to change.
	That is not all that will be different in a Europe of 25 or 30. The new nations joining the EU share, in many ways, the British perspective. They are firmly in favour of the transatlantic alliance. Freed from communism, they do not fear economic reform; they welcome it. Freed from subjugation by the former Soviet Union, the central and east Europeans have no intention or desire to yield up the nationhood for which they have fought so hard. It is no surprise, therefore, that the Convention so explicitly ruled out a European federal superstate.
	It is not only the new members that will sign up to that vision of Europe. Increasingly, Europe knows that the focus for its economy and for its security has to be outward, not inward. The danger for Britain is that, at the very time when Europe is moving closer to the view of Europe with which we are most comfortable, and which we can advocate so well, we should lose the chance to take our proper place in Europe by fighting battles long since over, and by turning away at the very point when Europe is turning towards us.
	There are real battles, of course—for example, over tax or defence—but they are battles that we can win. At this point in time, with Europe at a crucial point of evolution, this nation, Britain, has to have the confidence to stride forward in Europe, not hang back.
	The next year will determine the shape of Europe of which we are a member. There will be critical alliances to be made and choices to be faced, but I have no doubt that a Europe that now stretches from Finland and the Baltic states to the shores of the Aegean sea, Cyprus and Malta is a Europe that should have, and will have, Britain at its heart.

Iain Duncan Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and congratulate the Greek Government on their hard work. I welcome the recent signing of the accession treaty in Athens. I also welcome the statement of support for the middle east road map for peace.
	There were, however, three failures arising from Thessaloniki. First, yet another European summit has passed with no commitment to, or even discussion of, real reform of the common agricultural policy, despite the Prime Minister's QMV. Secondly, the Prime Minister failed to obtain EU backing for his offshore asylum centres; his pilot projects will not hide his failure. Thirdly, we got the European constitution.
	The Government have claimed that the proposed European constitution is just "a tidying-up exercise"; yet is it not the case that the constitution will set up a European president, transfer asylum and immigration policy to Brussels, establish a binding charter of fundamental rights and create an overarching constitutional settlement in which the EU can expand its powers without the approval of national Parliaments? The Government have completely understated the all-embracing nature of that constitution.
	Recently, the German Foreign Minister said that the constitution is
	"the most important treaty since the formation of the European Economic Community".
	At the same time, our Prime Minister says that the constitution
	"does not involve a fundamental change to the British constitution".—[Official Report, 18 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 352.]
	What nonsense! The constitution will fundamentally change the way in which every country in Europe is governed. Everybody else sees that.
	The Prime Minister always talks about his red lines in the debate on the constitution, so will he tell us why they keep moving? Will he tell us why he opposed a binding charter of fundamental rights, but now accepts it; why he opposed an EU Foreign Minister, but now supports one; why he wanted to limit QMV, but now, apparently, wants even more of it; and why he rejected the need for a written EU constitution, but now embraces it?
	The Laeken declaration rightly stated that
	"the European institutions must be brought closer to its citizens".
	Is it not the case, however, that the constitution is top down and even more centralising?
	The Prime Minister wants to hide his Government's failure by setting up a false debate about staying in the EU or leaving it. The real debate is not about staying or leaving. The Conservative party does not want Britain to leave the EU; we want to make it work. I remind the Prime Minister that he is the one who wants to make Europe a superpower—that is his policy. That is the real debate and he will do absolutely anything to avoid it.
	The President of the Convention, whom the Prime Minister was lauding during his statement, said that
	"constitutions are created by citizens and adopted by them in referendums".
	A growing number of European countries are committing to a referendum on the matter, and 88 per cent. of the British people say that they want a referendum. So, if the Prime Minister believes that he is doing the right thing, why does he not hold a referendum and let the British people decide?

Tony Blair: First, let us deal with the common agricultural policy. The right hon. Gentleman says that it was a great failure that the policy was not dealt with at the Council—[Interruption.] Let me deal with the CAP first. The reason why we did not deal with the CAP at the European Council is simple: it would have been quite disastrous to have transferred discussion of the CAP from the Agriculture Council, where there is QMV, to the European Council, where there is unanimity.
	For that very reason, everyone who was in favour of common agricultural reform asked us not to take it at the European Council, but to leave it at the Agriculture Council.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that other member states objected to the pilot projects and that, because of the unanimity requirement, we cannot get them through on the basis that we originally anticipated. However, because the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees supports the projects, we are able to undertake them and the Council agreed that the European Commission should report back on those issues.
	The full-time president of the Council, whom the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, is good for this country because it allows us to make sure that we have the Council with an agenda that is driven through, rather than 25 nation states having a rotating six-monthly presidency.

Iain Duncan Smith: You were against it.

Tony Blair: I am sorry; it was our proposal. Our proposal is to replace the rotating six-monthly president with a full-time chairman; otherwise, we will not be able to get a consistent agenda, driven by the Council—the intergovernmental body that covers all the work of Europe.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned QMV, on which our position is that if it is in our interests, we accept it; if it is not, we do not. It is quite wrong to say that every extension of QMV is always hostile to Britain. May I simply remind him that, under the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty, there were massive extensions of qualified majority voting, for entirely sensible reasons to do with the British national interest? Indeed, most of those on his Front Bench, though not him, voted in favour of those extensions.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right to say, however, that the divide between the parties is very clear. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has published his alternative convention document, which the Conservatives say is very good and effective.

John Bercow: It is first class.

Tony Blair: Thank you. That is now the Conservatives' policy, but let me tell them what it says. Let us look at the document that is now being endorsed by those on the Conservative Front Bench. It says:
	"We propose to transform the EU into a Europe of Democracies . . . which shall be a treaty association of free and self-governing European states".
	[Interruption.] Fine: they are all in agreement with that. It goes on to say:
	"A national parliament shall have a veto on an issue it deems important."
	So that is an end to any concept of any issue being driven through by Europe in that way. The right hon. Member for Wells may be right, he may be wrong—many Members are nodding and saying that he is right—but let us be quite clear that that is effectively redrawing Britain's membership of the European Union.
	If Conservative Front Benchers endorse that policy document, their policy is wholly inconsistent with Britain's present membership of the European Union. [Hon. Members: "No, it is not."] Yes, it is, and it would mean that we would have to redraw and renegotiate Britain's membership of the EU. That is now the position of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Wood Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), and it is fundamentally opposed to everything that even the Conservative party has stood for up until now.

Iain Duncan Smith: What about the referendum?

Tony Blair: We have already given the reasons why we do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the referendum, but let me just say that it is now absolutely clear what the dividing line is. There is no way that that document—signed, I think, by only eight other members of the Convention—is anything other than a plea for a new type of British membership of the EU. That is what it is, and it would mean renegotiating our membership, and that is why the dividing line between our two parties is: this side, constructive engagement in the EU; that side, withdrawal from the EU.

Charles Kennedy: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I certainly welcome the acceptance of the Convention's proposals in principle, and it is worth reminding ourselves that, not that many years ago, it would have been unthinkable that 15 existing member states and 10 accession countries could reach even this degree of consensus for sensible co-operation over the development of the EU.
	There will be an intergovernmental conference later in the year, albeit that we do not know how long it will last, and I gather that the Government now acknowledge that there will be an opportunity for a further debate before the recess on the Convention proposals.
	We obviously welcome that, but do the Government acknowledge that it would assist the House's capacity to discuss these matters in even more detail if they were to publish a White Paper outlining with more specific intent their approach to the forthcoming negotiations and their position on the relevant articles?
	It was good to hear the Prime Minister make the positive case, where appropriate, for the relevant extensions to qualified majority voting and for the relevant applications of that process, and to begin to destroy some of the myths attached to that by opponents of the process.
	The Government have described the proposals as they stand as a "good basis" for discussion. Surely, a dividing line must be drawn between what is a good basis for the ensuing discussion and allowing the unravelling of the basis of the Convention proposals, which is what some of the wreckers want to happen. Does the Prime Minister acknowledge the inherent dangers in that?
	The Prime Minister mentioned the minority report that was issued by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and six other members of the Convention. In an article in last week's The Wall Street Journal, the right hon. Gentleman referred to foreign and security policy and mutual solidarity, as it is described. That goes to the central issue, which the Prime Minister may want to address. The right hon. Member for Wells argued:
	"Since this solidarity requirement will be enshrined in a constitution, it will be legally binding."
	Does the Prime Minister agree that it is incumbent on him, the Foreign Secretary and all those involved to make the case for a strengthened conduct of EU external relations based on the institutions of the Union, which remain emphatically intergovernmental under these processes? Does he also agree that that will provide sufficient safeguards for independent foreign policy making by member states, including any British Government coming before the House of Commons?
	In that respect, the proposed Foreign Minister role is to be welcomed, as is the solidarity shown over Iran and the middle east peace process. Does the Prime Minister agree that if that solidarity could be extended to Iraq it would assist the cause against weapons of mass destruction?
	The proposed intergovernmental agency for defence issues, not least research and procurement, is to be welcomed. Many a Committee of the House has examined this area, and we all know about the excessive wastage on procurement measures over the years. Equally welcome is the fact that taxation policy is to remain within the ambit of nation states, Governments and Parliaments.
	On asylum, immigration and cross-border crime, not much progress seems to have been made on the first two. The Prime Minister said that the European Commission will report back on the pilot projects that did not command unanimity. What is the time scale for that report back, and what force will it have?
	The whole point of a constitution for Europe is to codify the relevant levels of responsibility and competence. That should satisfy Euro-supporters and Eurosceptics alike. In the House and in the debate in Britain, we must identify and make clear the difference between reassuring those who are constructively sceptical about aspects of Europe and those diehards who can never be satisfied. The leader of the Conservative party talks about a false debate. Is it not important that for the first time we have a voluntary exit clause for EU member states, which will place an obligation on each and every political party in British politics to make it clear whether it would ever wish to avail itself of such a clause?
	In so far as the Convention moves us forward towards a Europe that is more democratic, more accountable and more transparent, it is to be welcomed. As a country, only inside Europe can we continue to make that case constructively—not increasingly destructively outside it.

Tony Blair: First, in relation to how we proceed from now, the issue of a White Paper is being discussed by the usual channels, and that is one possible alternative.
	It is important to emphasise that, in a Europe of 25, it must be in our interests—except in vital sets of circumstances such as foreign policy, defence or tax—to extend QMV, without which we cannot make Europe work effectively. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman entirely about that, although it is important that we do not unravel what was seen—not always here, but certainly abroad—as essentially a good deal for Britain.
	It is important to retain unanimity on the common foreign and security policy. We want Europe to develop a better and more effective common foreign and security policy, which is why, for example, we are backing France in the Congo through the EU mission, which is very important. We expect reports on the pilot projects in June 2004.
	On the whole, most aspects of the Convention have been seen, elsewhere but not here, as a substantial retention of the concept—indeed, perhaps for the first time, a proper elaboration of the concept—that as Europe co-operates more it should be on the basis of nation states and not on the basis of a federal superstate.

Jack Cunningham: May I commend the important progress made at the European summit and congratulate my right hon. Friend on safeguarding so effectively Britain's important national interests? Is it not clear from the Leader of the Opposition's suggestion that agriculture reform should be taken at the summit that he is abysmally ignorant of the processes of the European Union? Will my right hon. Friend redouble his efforts to end the serious dislocation between the European Union and the United States of America? If we do not do so, summits will come and go, but in the middle east and Africa, famine, war, pestilence and death will gallop ahead unchecked.

Tony Blair: First, I thank my right hon. Friend for what he says about the Agriculture Council, which is very important. Clearly, if we had to take matters related to agriculture in the full European Council, it would prevent any prospect of reform or change.
	In respect of the dislocation, as he describes it, between Europe and the United States of America, some signs exist that, whatever the differences over Iraq, people are coming together, which is welcome. I hope very much that at the European Union-American summit this week we will be able to take significant steps forward again for the re-establishment of good relations. The truth is that on issues related to terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, the middle east peace process and global poverty, the EU and the US are on the same side and share the same values. Working together, we can achieve a great deal. The general mood of the Council was to make sure that we repair the transatlantic alliance and make it function effectively.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The Prime Minister was rather coy about the list of red line issues that he wants removed from the draft constitution. Will he agree, however, that it is rather a long list now, including majority voting on criminal laws and procedures and on aspects of tax and foreign policy, all of which are in the present draft, as well as the compulsory co-ordination of national economic and employment policies, which he did not mention, plans for a European public prosecutor, harmonisation of social security measures, and late plans for a wholesale transfer from national veto to majority voting, without any reference back to national parliaments or people? As he is now diverging from his absurd claim that this is just a tidying-up exercise, will he put in a public document where and what his red lines are? If he is so confident that he can overturn all of them, why does he not have the confidence to put the result to the British people in a referendum?

Tony Blair: I have explained on many occasions why I do not believe that this is a proper subject for a referendum. I repeat once again that neither the Single European Act nor the Maastricht treaty was put to a referendum by the then Conservative Government.
	In respect of the right hon. Gentleman's other points, issues remain, of course, in relation to tax administration. Let us not forget, however, that, for example, on tax, we have effectively won that battle in Europe. In respect of common foreign and security policy, we have effectively won that battle. Surely there will still be issues that we need to get right, but let us be quite clear about the situation.
	There are, of course, issues that we must debate here, but the right hon. Gentleman will accept that his ideas on the Convention, which I think have been effectively agreed by his party today, would mean that Britain would become a different type of member of the European Union. That is exactly what he wants; it is a perfectly honourable position but a position of which people should be aware. We could end up effectively in a situation in which, for example, as he says, a national Parliament could effectively veto the application of any issues in its country. People might agree with that but there is no way that single market measures could be driven though in those circumstances. If we ended up with associate membership of the European Union, which he is advocating, it would effectively result in a complete change in our relationship with Europe. I think that he has the intellectual honesty to admit that and, if it is the case, it represents a fundamental dividing line between the two political parties.

Harry Barnes: Will my right hon. Friend tell me the gains and losses, in democratic terms, of the draft treaty proposals both for United Kingdom citizens and the totality of citizens of the European Union? If his answer requires a couple of volumes by way of response, perhaps it could be placed in the Library, but a brief, taut and penetrating reply would be welcome.

Tony Blair: I do not think that my answer will require a couple of volumes. The principal gains for our own involvement and that of national Parliaments, for example, will be involvement in legislation for the first time. Powers of co-decision will also be extended for the European Parliament. The basic issue is that there were those in Europe who argued that we should effectively move to some sort of federal superstate. That argument has been decisively rejected, which is why it is so important that, apart from the British Conservative party—which is, let us say, eccentric on the issue—every other country in Europe has accepted that this is indeed a strike against federalism and in favour of a Europe of nations. The Conservative party might explode with indignation about that but it represents literally the only part of Europe in which that is being said.

Crispin Blunt: The Prime Minister has made it clear that the draft constitution is unacceptable in its current form, so why has he so undermined his negotiating position at the intergovernmental conference by pre-emptively ruling out a referendum?

Tony Blair: Because I do not believe that that undermines our negotiating position at all. Indeed, the very reason why we have got as far as we have is that we have negotiated sensibly, built alliances and shown—as Britain does when it puts its mind to it—that in Britain we can win.

Denzil Davies: On the common agricultural policy, my right hon. Friend reminded the House that decisions taken at the European Council require unanimity, but decisions taken at the Agriculture Ministers Council use qualified majority voting. In view of that, can he give us some hope that before long proposals for substantial reform will come from the Agriculture Ministers Council and that that will happen in good time before world trade negotiations in the autumn?

Tony Blair: I think that I can give at least qualified hope on that. The Agriculture Council meets again on Wednesday. I think that it secured significant advances last week. There is every hope that we will get agreement there and, of course, it is the only place where we will get agreement precisely because QMV applies.

Angela Browning: When the Prime Minister brought this Mary-Anne back through the nothing-to-declare channel at the weekend, had he spent any time discussing the British interest in terms of European fraud, accounting systems, the way in which European accounts are audited and Neil Kinnock?

Tony Blair: I do not agree with some of the hon. Lady's remarks. She talks about discussing the British national interest, which is precisely what we have represented throughout. Our disagreement with her and her colleagues is that we believe that the British national interest is best served by being in Europe and inside the European Union, not by moving towards associate membership that would leave us without any influence on issues relating to fraud or anything else.

David Borrow: Can I refer my right hon. Friend to the reconstruction of Iraq? When I visited Iraq about a week ago, I was impressed by the work of our forces to reconstruct Basra. Water and electricity supplies are better now than they were before the war, 15 schools have been refurbished, medical centres have been re-equipped, police stations are being painted and decorated, and new Iraqi police officers are being trained and are out on the streets. However, I raise with my right hon. Friend UN Security Council resolution 1483 and the EU's reaction to it. It is clear to me that if we are to make a success of reconstruction in Iraq, it is no use leaving it simply to our troops and the UK taxpayer. Successful reconstruction needs a much bigger input from both the EU and aid agencies across the world.

Tony Blair: First, I echo what my hon. Friend says about the contribution of British troops and, indeed, British aid workers and people from the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development. They are making a huge difference to the reconstruction of Iraq and work is proceeding. As he rightly says, many schools have reopened and many businesses and homes are being rebuilt. There is an atmosphere, whatever the difficulties, of real hope for the future.
	My hon. Friend is also right in saying that 1483, the new United Nations resolution, calls on everyone to develop as secure a programme as possible in giving greater amounts of help. I hope very much that over the coming months we can get that help under way in Iraq. The prospects are extremely good if we can lever in the right expertise and change from the outside.

Andrew Mitchell: Does the Prime Minister think that the structure of the six-monthly European jamborees has largely outlived its usefulness? If, as reported, he came home halfway through the Council to see his children, who, frankly, could complain about that? Why does he not appoint another Minister to go to the meetings, take a few notes and report back on the personalities? He could consider the Leader of the House, who has now gone plural. As Secretary of State for Wales, he might also have time, in addition to reforming the tax system, to report back to him on European junketing.

Tony Blair: First, I attended the whole of the European Council. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman's idea that I should not go to the European Council but instead send someone to take notes for me is slightly strange. It would mean that 24 nations in the European Council would be represented by their Head of Government or Head of State and we would have a notetaker. That would be a really good thing for Britain, wouldn't it?

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the ratchet clause in the treaty will not consistently remove from national Governments their right to veto any legislation that is not in the interests of their nation?

Tony Blair: It is precisely because of our concerns about the so-called passerelle clause that we believe that we need fundamental change to ensure that national Parliaments cannot be bypassed in that way. Such a thing could only be agreed by unanimity in the European Council, but I think that we need further protections for national Parliaments, too.

Simon Thomas: I am sure the Prime Minister will join me in welcoming the new countries into the European Union—places such as Malta, Cyprus, the Baltic states and Slovenia—to become part of something that will now be a union of member states. Does he agree that that union will be characterised by member states that tend to be of a smaller size than those that joined in the past? Many of them will be the same size as Wales and Scotland and have similar economies. What did the right hon. Gentleman do in the European Council over the weekend to protect the needs of Wales and Scotland, especially with regard to their ability to gain direct access to structural funds and other funding?

Tony Blair: We have protected, in so far as we possibly can, the structural funds through the deal that we secured at Berlin a few years ago, and it is important that we continue to do so. However, it is also important to recognise that this country, as a major contributor to the European Union, needs an effective and efficient way of limiting the overall budget for Europe. In respect of Wales and Scotland, I believe the procedures in place offer the best protection for their interests.

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that expansion of the EU to 25 nations provides a great opportunity for British businesses, especially those in the north-east of England which rely on 78 per cent. of their exports going to the EU? Does he also agree that future business opportunities and job creation are put at risk by those who advocate either withdrawal from the EU or associate membership of it?

Tony Blair: What is absolutely extraordinary is any position that says that we should renegotiate our basic terms of membership of the European Union when 10 countries that are essentially supportive of the British point of view are coming into Europe and we have a better chance of winning these debates in Europe than we have probably ever had since we became members. To end up, when we are about to create literally the single biggest economic market in the world, redrawing our essential terms of membership would be an act almost of extraordinary folly for this country. The fact that the Conservative party now takes that position says a great deal about its present state.

Ian Taylor: Does the Prime Minister agree that to make the European Union work, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, we will have to make changes? Increasingly, there are decisions that cannot be made by nation states alone. Was the Prime Minister aware how Thatcherite he was when welcoming the extension of qualified majority voting? In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher made it quite clear that qualified majority voting was in the national interest, as it would overcome the protectionist instinct of other member countries. Was there a chance at the summit to discuss Europe's economic problems and the reform programmes that Germany and France need to put in place because of the consequences of a single monetary zone?

Tony Blair: There was a lot of discussion of the basic economic situation and the importance of reform programmes. As for the point that the hon. Gentleman made about QMV, of course that is right. Any country that seriously adopted the position that the Conservative Front-Bench team is now taking would inevitably, because of its total unreasonableness, have to renegotiate its essential terms of membership.

Eric Forth: indicated assent.

Tony Blair: The shadow Leader of the House is nodding. The debate is beginning, and we will have an opportunity through the workings of the Convention to have that debate in the House. It is extraordinary that today the Conservative party is taking a more extreme position than Margaret Thatcher used to take.

Joan Ruddock: Did the foreign affairs discussion include the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern, particularly among women, that the Constitution Commission may not be able to carry out its work effectively because of the lack of security? How will he respond to the pleas of Presidents Karzai and Musharraf and 80 non-governmental organisations working in Afghanistan for real security to be provided by the international community outside the capital of Kabul?

Tony Blair: We want to respond positively to those claims. Obviously, I had an opportunity to discuss that with President Karzai a few weeks ago, and it is worth pointing out that when I told him that it is often said here that Afghanistan is in no better shape than it was when the Taliban were in charge, his response was that anyone who seriously believed that could not have been to the same country that he had been in. There have been huge strides forward, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify the fact that the problem with security is outside Kabul, which is why we are in discussion with Germany and other countries to try to make sure that we extend the remit of the security force. We will be taking part in some of the regional teams that will try to make sure that the Afghan army is built up sufficiently so that it can operate in all areas of Afghanistan and so that its writ runs from the centre to all those areas.
	The point that my hon. Friend made about the constitution is right. I believe that we can safeguard the position of women and other minorities in terms of the ethnic mix in Afghanistan—[Interruption.] The different ethnic mix of minorities has to be protected too. There is also a great deal of recognition of the importance of getting the right co-operation on the drugs issue, but I am satisfied that we will be able to make progress in all those things.

George Osborne: On Iran, does the Prime Minister agree with President Bush that the students on the streets of Tehran deserve our support?

Tony Blair: I think people who are fighting for freedom everywhere deserve our support, but the exact nature of the support that we are able to give is an open and different question. However, people in whatever part of the world who are trying to achieve basic human rights and civil liberties deserve support from all of us.

Gerald Kaufman: I am surprised that the Prime Minister, when referring to the middle east peace process, did not join the United States Secretary of State in denouncing the sabotaging by the Israeli Prime Minister of the peace process with a policy of targeted assassinations, which inevitably bring on Palestinian terrorist suicide bombings of innocent Israeli civilians, whose blood rests on the head of the Israeli Prime Minister as much as on their murderers. Will my right hon. Friend now make it clear that this rogue elephant Sharon must be reined in and, if he will not assist in the peace process, sanctions and an arms ban must be imposed on him?

Tony Blair: At point 85 of the Council conclusions, we made clear our opposition to extra-judicial killings and to aspects of Israeli policy with which we disagree. I know my right hon. Friend will also want me to say that it is important that we deal with all aspects of the violence. We should recognise and remember that many innocent Israeli citizens are dying in the most appalling terrorist acts. In the end, if we want to play a part in resolving that situation, it will be incumbent on us less to condemn people and more to get the situation sorted out.

Tony Baldry: The House will know that one of the advantages of European Council meetings is not only the formal sessions, but the opportunity that they provide for informal and private discussions between Heads of Government. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that he took those informal opportunities to make clear to fellow Heads of Government the urgent need to reform the common agricultural policy? We understand his point about the need for formal discussions to take place in the Agriculture Ministers Council, but if the World Trade Organisation is to succeed at Cancun, as the Prime Minister said when he came back and reported on the G8 summit, reform of the CAP is vital. There is not much time between now and Cancun, and we should like to hear him assure the House that he took every opportunity informally to impress upon his colleagues the need for action to be taken on reform of the common agricultural policy.

Tony Blair: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we take every opportunity we can to press the case for CAP reform. The one hope that we have is that at Cancun in September the WTO must reach an agreement, and we must have a proper offer from Europe in place by that time. That is concentrating minds. I am not saying that we will reach agreement in the Agriculture Council, but it is fair to say that we have come a significant distance in the past few days. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we lose no opportunity whatever to tell people what we think. Essentially, we are in a majority on the issue, but obviously we need to move others too.

Keith Vaz: In the discussions on enlargement, was any mention made of the early-warning letters that have been sent by the Commission to some of the members-designate? As the champion of enlargement, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that his Government will work as closely as possible with countries that have received such letters to ensure that all outstanding points are dealt with before 1 May, to avoid the possibility of infraction proceedings being issued against some of them as soon as they become members?

Tony Blair: The matter was not discussed at the European Council. There are issues that still have to be resolved in respect of that, and it is important that all the countries coming into the European Union abide by the rules of the EU. I am hopeful that these issues will be resolved. The implicit assumption of the entire meeting, which was the first time that we had met from the beginning as 25, was that the issues would be overcome and countries would be able to accede to the European Union in the way anticipated.

Graham Brady: The Prime Minister is refusing the British people the right to vote on the future European constitution, on the ground that previous treaties have been signed without referendums. Does he not understand what is blindingly obvious to the British people: that the changes and the process of handing over power to European institutions are cumulative? The British people take the view that the process has gone far enough. They want an opportunity to say no. Why is he depriving them of that right?

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman certainly let the cat out of the bag at the end of his question. The difference between us is that I do not believe that unless there is a fundamental alteration of the essential constitutional arrangements, a referendum is the proper way to proceed. The reason why we have said that we will have a referendum on the single currency, should we recommend it, is that it does represent a fundamental change in our constitutional arrangements; these proposals do not. Therefore, I do not agree that we require a referendum. The reason why I point out that previous Conservative Governments did not hold a referendum in those circumstances is to show the difference between being in government, where one has to take some responsibility for getting these things right, and in opposition, where one does not.

Nigel Beard: Did the European Council consider the need to amend the stability and growth pact in order to give member states greater freedom to stimulate their economies while maintaining fiscal discipline?

Tony Blair: There was not a specific discussion at the European Council on that matter, but as my hon. Friend knows, discussions are going on about how the stability and growth pact can be made more flexible to take account of the different economic conditions through which countries live. The ideas that we have put forward on that meet with a certain amount of approval.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister has simply failed to answer the very direct question about a referendum. Let me remind him that, before 1997, he made a personal pledge to hold a referendum on European integration if it was not in the manifesto. The European constitution was not in his manifesto. Will he please stop avoiding the issue and tell the House why he really will not have a referendum on this constitution?

Tony Blair: I have said why—it is for the reasons that I have given today. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has got up for a second time, because he was saying earlier that it was no part of the Conservative party's desire to leave the European Union, but I have his quotes from the Frost programme a couple of weeks ago—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Prime Minister answer.

Tony Blair: This is what the right hon. Gentleman said:
	"It's not us leaving Europe, it's actually the others making this finally something which we don't want."
	That is the true dividing line. The reason why the right hon. Gentleman wants a referendum is so that he can say no, paralyse the European Union and get out. That is the real dividing line between the two political parties and it has been made even more clear today. I suggest that he gets up another time.

Point of Order

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you been approached today by any Minister seeking to clarify the position on tax? Since the astonishing revelations by the tax-raising Leader of the House and the statements by the right hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), have you had any request from a member of the Government to clear up this very important matter, as it now appears that there is a secret agenda to raise tax among members of the Government?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps that is something that the right hon. Gentleman can raise in business questions. Opposition Day

[10th Allotted Day]

Student Finance

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Phil Willis: I beg to move,
	That this House calls on the Government not to allow universities to introduce top-up fees.
	I welcome the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education to his place and wish him well in his post, which has so far claimed five ministerial lives. It seems a poisoned position, but we wish him well.
	My father was a Burnley postman who was prevented from taking his place at the grammar school in Burnley in 1917 on the basis that his family were too poor to buy him a uniform. That was the reason why he did not go to the school. However, my father, who has since died, knew only too well the true value of education and it was his proudest moment when I was not only the first in our family not to leave school at 15—that is what people did in working-class Lancashire mill towns in those days—but the first to go on to higher education. If this debate is about anything—

Stephen Pound: Shameless.

Phil Willis: It was a shame; the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

Stephen Pound: I said shameless.

Phil Willis: I am sorry.
	If this debate is about anything, it is making sure that no student with talent is denied access to university on the basis of poverty or fear of debt. Access for students from under-represented groups must be one of the core issues that we address in this debate. It is one of the fundamental reasons why the Liberal Democrats, some Conservatives and, I suspect, the vast majority of Labour Members oppose the introduction of top-up fees and the escalation of student debt. It is why 139 Back-Bench Labour Members have voiced their opposition by signing early-day motion 2, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), and why four Cabinet members, including two former Secretaries of State for Education and two other Ministers, went on record condemning the very thought of such an idea.
	The Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was then Secretary of State for Education and Employment, said in answer to a question about top-up fees—

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: I shall just finish the quotation first. On 23 March 2000, the then Secretary of State said:
	"I, and the House, have specifically ruled out top-up fees."
	He continued:
	"Anything that discourages open access to all universities and their departments in this country is, in my view, wrong."—[Official Report, 23 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 1105-06.]
	His successor as Secretary of State, now the Minister for the Arts, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), wrote in The Guardian on 4 October 2001:
	"I recognise that for many low-income families fear of debt is a real worry and could act as a barrier to higher education."
	During the Government's first term of office, Baroness Blackstone, the Minister responsible for higher education, told the Select Committee on Education and Employment:
	"It is no part of our policy to promote or introduce top-up fees. I cannot make my position, and that of the Government, clearer."
	In this Parliament—within the past year—the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quoted at a breakfast meeting with journalists as deriding the idea of top-up fees as a "ridiculous idea". In November 2002, in The Guardian, the former Secretary of State for International Development said that in her view university top-up fees are "a really bad idea".
	Even the current Secretary of State for Education and Skills said on the day that he was appointed that he was "generally anti" top-up fees and that
	"I prefer a graduate tax myself".
	So what has changed? Why is he now so determined to push through a policy that he must know is not only deeply unpopular in this House, but is likely to be counterproductive for the core objectives of the Labour Government? The Times Educational Supplement affectionately refers to the Secretary of State as a rhino. It is time that he stopped charging and listened to those who describe the effects of a policy that will be quite disastrous.

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman is explaining how various members of the Cabinet have expressed their opinions on the matter. May I take him back to his reference to the early-day motion and the number of Labour MPs who signed it? Will he be surprised if those Labour MPs do not vote in the Lobby in which he intends to vote? Is he aware that two weeks ago, when we had a debate on post offices, several Labour MPs who had signed an early-day motion on that subject nevertheless voted against the motion under debate?

Phil Willis: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will of course be equally surprised when the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who speaks for the Conservative party, and who said on 19 January,
	"I don't mind the principle of differential fees",
	jumps camp and votes in favour of the motion.

Damian Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: I am still trying to deal with the previous intervention.
	I believe that those 139 Labour MPs signed that EDM as a matter of principle—that is, the principle of their opposition to top-up fees. I hope that they do come into the Lobby tonight to vote with us. If they fail to do so, they will have failed on that issue of principle.

Damian Green: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, since he purported to represent my views. I feel that I should draw his attention to Liberal Democrat News of 30 May 2003. It is a publication that I read sporadically. This edition is particularly interesting because it makes the following thoughtful point:
	"Damian Green's idea of getting rid of tuition fees, and financing the move by scrapping plans to extend the number of students even further, has a lot to be said for it."
	I always welcome support from Liberal Democrat News, and I hope to get it from the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesmen, as well.

Phil Willis: May I say to the hon. Gentleman that that was a most unfortunate intervention, because I shall now put into my speech a section on his policy? I know that he searches far and wide for policy initiatives, but Liberal Democrat News was one place to which I did not think he would go.

Simon Thomas: My colleagues and I will support the hon. Gentleman's motion tonight, but I am interested to know where his party is now going on tuition fees. In Scotland, it has followed the path of an endowment-type scheme. In Wales, before the coalition came to an end, there were different thoughts on the issue. Mention has also been made of a graduate tax. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what alternatives are available, because universities in Wales, in particular, are faced with a funding bind?

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Our existing policy is based on what we have done in the coalition in Scotland. We are very proud of our achievement in getting rid of up-front tuition fees—[Hon. Members: "Up front?"] If Conservative Members read Liberal Democrat News as avidly as their Front-Bench spokesman says they do, they will know that no student in Scotland pays tuition fees, full stop. [Hon. Members: "Up front."] Neither up front nor back front. There are two elements to student finance in Scotland: the tuition fee, which is free, and the maintenance grant, which is contributed to by an endowment for all students. That is a fair policy, and I compliment my colleagues in Scotland and the Labour Members of the Scottish Executive on having introduced it.
	In answer to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), there is quite rightly a debate taking place in Wales on what is right for Wales. When I gave evidence to the Select Committee—which the Conservatives refused to attend because, of course, they have no policy to discuss—I suggested that, given the Secretary of State's proposal in the White Paper of a £1,000 grant, we should consider rolling that grant into our grant arrangements in England. If the hon. Member for Ceredigion will be patient, I will come to that issue later.

John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is incredibly courteous to me on all occasions.

John Bercow: I am extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is offering a typically spirited denunciation of the Government's ill-thought-out policy. Given, however, that his own party's internal briefing document—reproduced, appropriately enough, in The Guardian on 17 January this year—hints that Liberal Democrat policy will be to provide maintenance grants to people only if they study close to home and preferably take only two-year foundation courses, does the hon. Gentleman not see the narrowness of the ambition of Liberal Democrat thinking? Why does he not recognise that people ought to be able to decide their courses on the basis of personal choice rather than financial affordability?

Phil Willis: My goodness, the hon. Gentleman is sinking to new lows! His Front-Bench colleagues say that the Conservatives want to deny 150,000 students the opportunity to go into higher education and that, by 2010, they want another 250,000 to be denied that opportunity, yet the hon. Gentleman says that we should not be considering how to deliver higher education policy. The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers because, if he does, he will be a very disappointed gentleman. One in two of our students—1 million students—study part-time and, virtually without exception, they study locally. The offer that they get locally should be as good as the offer that they get anywhere else in the United Kingdom. If they wish to go away and spend three years at a distant university, they should have the right to do that.
	However, that does not negate the fact that the Government and indeed the political parties should be fighting to ensure that every local university has a first-class offer to make to its students. The origins of the great civic universities of Leeds and Manchester were based in their local students. That is where we should be looking, rather than replicating a public school boy-type education of three years for everyone.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Phil Willis: I want to move on.

Tim Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: I am sorry. I want to make some progress.

Tim Boswell: rose—

Phil Willis: Very well, I give way.

Tim Boswell: I shall seek to intervene only once. The hon. Gentleman can perhaps clear up a confusion that has been worrying me for some time in relation to the graduate endowment liability, or whatever it is going to be called, in Scotland. If he were to go on holiday this summer and to pay for his holiday with, say, a Barclaycard or whatever—I make no particular endorsement of that card, although I have one myself—he would not pay until he came back home, so does he think that he would not have to pay at all?

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman seems to have difficulty understanding—and I understand that—that there is a fundamental difference between two elements of the university charge, if I may call it that. I will explain carefully. As a party, we have always steadfastly believed that tuition should be free at the point of delivery up to level 4.
	We accept, and indeed we accepted in 1997—[Interruption.] The Minister for Children must stop getting so excited. We accepted in 1997 that students would have to make an increased contribution towards their living costs, apart from poorer students who obviously need support—we think that that is the right distinction.

Damian Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: I am going to make progress. I am sorry to disappoint my colleagues.
	In 1997 our universities suffered a funding crisis following year-on-year cuts by the Conservative Government. Per student funding fell from £7,720 in 1989 to £5,080 in 2002, a reduction of £2,500 per student. That shortfall is the basis of the crisis in our university system, so the House should not forget those year-on-year cuts.
	Even more stark is the decline in the element of gross domestic product spent on higher education: down from 1.33 per cent. in 1981 to 1.16 per cent. in 2002–03, despite a doubling of student numbers. There is not a company anywhere that could deal with that sort of funding differential and still be able to maintain quality and standards. During Labour's first term in office, we saw a further 7 per cent. real-terms cut in expenditure, despite the introduction of tuition fees.
	Of course, there is a funding crisis, but getting the Government to quantify that crisis is near impossible. The former Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education was asked on numerous occasions, particularly by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), to quantify the higher education funding gap that we needed to bridge. She declined to answer. We asked the Secretary of State the same question at a sitting of the Select Committee on Education and Skills. He, too, declined to answer. How on earth can one have a funding system that is based on filling a gap that the Government themselves will not identify?
	Universities UK has made a compelling case for investment in university infrastructure, teaching and research facilities, and huge investment in science and technology and information technology. Many Labour Members would accept that that investment is needed, although the sum in their mind might not be the same as that identified by Universities UK. In the absence of Government figures and analysis, however, the £9.94 billion funding that Universities UK has called for is a good indication of the shortfall, of which roughly £1.5 billion is recurrent revenue expenditure.
	We also have evidence, from the Bett commission, that academic salaries and conditions are in need of a drastic overhauling. In fact, our academics are some of the worst paid people to be found anywhere in the education service. And of course, the Government have set an ambitious yet arbitrary target for expansion, through to 2010.

Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what Liberal Democrat higher education funding plans are predicated on, in terms of a target for the number of students in higher education?

Phil Willis: I will be perfectly frank with the hon. Gentleman—we do not accept the arbitrary target of 50 per cent., but we have predicated our spending figures on it because the Government have indicated that their spending will be based on it. I say quite straightforwardly that we hope that it will be exceeded; indeed, research presented to the Select Committee last week suggests that by 2010, the Government will achieve their 50 per cent. target with absolute ease. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) says from a sedentary position that this is the first time that we have had that information, but that is what the independent research suggests and I hope that it is right.
	We must also consider—[Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) is desperately interested in listening to my response, rather than in just muttering. We must also consider the product that we are delivering to our students. As I hope that the hon. Gentleman and certainly the Labour Front Benchers will agree, the product that we offer to students must be more relevant to this millennium than to the 1960s and the post-Robbins era, for example. The real challenge for all the political parties is not simply to provide more funding, but to re-engineer a product that is fit for the 21st century.

David Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: No, I want to make some progress; I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman later.
	If we are to have a world-class higher education system and to meet the expansion that everybody, with the exception of the Conservatives, says that the country needs, the investment has got to be paid for. The issue at the heart of today's debate—the stark choice—is: who should pay for tuition, the students or the state? Sorry, I am wrong—there is a third way: the Conservative way, which was devised during a recent bonding session in Chesham, in Buckinghamshire. [Interruption.] I did say "bonding", not bondage. [Interruption.] I thought that it was just Conservatives who got excited about that. It appears—

Angela Browning: May I confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I think that the hon. Gentleman was right the first time?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Thankfully, that is not a matter for the Chair.

Phil Willis: The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) is wasted, as ever. It appears that the Conservative policy—[Interruption.] This is worth listening to. It would appear that by reducing student numbers to 1993 levels, by not allowing any expansion of student numbers from poorer backgrounds, and by keeping funding for universities constant at 2003 levels, the Conservatives can create a world-class higher education system. No wonder the hon. Member for Ashford refused to attend the Select Committee, or that, when we asked the House of Commons Library to comment on the Conservatives' proposals, it said:
	"We couldn't understand the logic".
	Nor is it any wonder that Professor Barr, of the London School of Economics, said the following in calculating the loss of 150,000 university places in his latest research:
	"The Tory proposals are offensive to anyone who cares about fairness".
	That is the truth: it is offensive to say that we are going to pull up the ladder and not expand places. The very people who will be denied access to university are young people from poorer backgrounds.
	The Conservatives now have to answer, in the debate, the question of what will happen to the 150,000 people who would be denied a university place.

Peter Duncan: rose—

Phil Willis: I want to make some progress.
	If those young people are going into vocational programmes, where is the money? We cannot simply say that we are not going to allow them to go to university because we want them to go into vocational programmes—and then not provide the money. In view of the highly controversial research, published this week, by Libby Aston of the Higher Education Funding Council, what will happen to the additional 250,000 young people who will have level 3 qualifications by 2010, but, under Conservative proposals, will not be allowed to go to university? I hope that the Conservative spokesman explains the position. Still, enough of that.

Peter Duncan: rose—

Phil Willis: We await explanations, but we shall get back to reality.

Peter Duncan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, albeit somewhat belatedly. He mentioned fairness, but does he believe that his party's policy in Scotland is fair when a graduate who achieves the massive income of £10,000 a year, pays a marginal tax rate of 42 per cent. on incremental pounds beyond that level?

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman is a unique Conservative, coming from Scotland, but let me tell him that I am proud of what my colleagues achieved in Scotland. In all honesty, I tell him that when Andrew Cubie first made his proposals—he said at that time that we needed a high threshold of repayment, suggesting £20,000—I would have supported them in their totality. I am sure that all hon. Members would recognise, however, that the cost of that proposal would have been exorbitant. Every Executive, including the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly Government, have to live within the means at their disposal. Interesting proposals were produced and I compliment those who produced them; I am delighted that we were part of that.
	The Liberal Democrats' fundamental objection to top-up fees is threefold: first, because the income cannot be regarded as additional income; secondly, on account of the increase of student debt and its adverse effect on all students; and, thirdly, for their effect on access. The issue of additionality is important. There is a belief that the Government will simply use the new income from students as replacement income, as we have seen since the introduction of student tuition fees. At a recent Select Committee, on 19 March 2003, the Secretary of State said that
	"the fees give more of a guarantee to universities of their future funding than any other alternative of money going to universities."
	That is what the current Secretary of State said. However, some of us recall that the former Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), said to the House on 23 July 1997 on the subject of introducing tuition fees that
	"the entire objective in taking our difficult decisions has been to put higher education on a firm footing for the next two decades."—[Official Report, 23 July 1998; Vol. 298, c. 958.]
	Yet what has gone into our universities since 1998 is not additional funding, but replacement funding. The Government grant has been reduced, virtually pound for pound, in relation to the student contribution. Will the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education make it clear, now or in his summing up, that all income from top-up fees will be additional? We need to know whether it will be additional or replacement money. If he cannot or will not confirm that top-up fees will offer additional revenue to universities, he should realise that that will inevitably mean all universities charging the full fee of £3,000, because if they do not, they will actually lose grant. The Minister must respond to that point. Whenever I visit universities—and I am sure that the same applies to other hon. Members who visit them—I find out that they intend to charge the full £3,000.
	The second principal objection concerns debt. The average debt at present is £12,000, but that would rocket to £21,000 with even the poorest students having to find £2,000 a year in top-up fees. Our concern about debt is shared by university vice-chancellors, who see more students struggling with it. Indeed, a recent NUS survey showed that the principal reason for students dropping out of university is debt. Professor McKenna, from the university of Ulster, said in his written submission to the Education and Employment Committee that
	"the white paper has failed to find any remedy to the situation where many thousands of students have to work thirty hours a week to fund their education, yet are still deemed full time students."
	He adds that
	"it is a recipe for second class citizenship, inside and outside higher education."
	It is important, too, to consider the impact of debt on the future economic decisions graduates will make, on careers, family, mortgages, pensions and their ability to go into business. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House if he has had any discussions with financial institutions to discuss how student debt will impact on graduates' financial status.
	Our third and deepest concern about top-up fees remains their impact on access. The White Paper on higher education openly admits:
	"The social class gap among those entering higher education is unacceptably wide."
	I am sure that we would all agree, irrespective of our political beliefs. The question for the Government is how the introduction of top-up fees will improve that unacceptable situation. The Secretary of State's argument is that deferring the fee to after graduation will be sufficient to remove the disincentive to study, but there is an ever-lengthening list of research that says otherwise.
	The Joseph Rowntree Foundation's report "Socio-economic disadvantage and experience in higher education" concluded that
	"Students from disadvantaged backgrounds were more likely to prematurely reduce their levels of participation within Higher Education, by dropping out of courses or by forgoing the opportunity to progress to more advanced courses."
	Factors identified as lying behind that difficulty included
	"A fear of debt".
	Prof. Claire Callendar at the South Bank university, in her report "Attitudes to Debt" came to almost the same conclusions:
	"Debt aversion deterred entry into HE and had the greatest impact on the participation of the very groups that the government most wants to attract into HE."
	What more needs to be added to that damning analysis of the Government's policy?
	The Secretary of State is right to challenge the effective Opposition as well as the Conservative Opposition to say how we would do things differently. We have laid out clearly, in our policy document "Quality, Diversity and Choice", that we believe that higher education should be paid for through a tax rate of 50 per cent. on taxable incomes over £100,000. We believe in redistribution: those who have the most money should make the greatest contribution. We reject the farcical idea that graduates earn £400,000 extra during their lives. That figure is based on a work force survey in 2001 that made no direct comparisons with people with level 3 qualifications. The Government are trying to get 50 per cent. of people into higher education, but they persist in the nonsensical notion that all graduates become high earners. The research demonstrates that students coming out of Oxbridge with arts degrees have no higher an earning capacity than students who left education with two A-levels. The situation is different for different groups of students.
	David Beckham might not be a graduate, but he is one of the most highly paid individuals. Yet without graduates who are able to mend his foot when it gets broken, look after his money, design his wife's clothes, deliver his children and complete his transfer to Real Madrid he would be the poorer. Put simply, this is a debate about whether or not we want to encourage a world-class education system or to return to a class-based education system where students choose universities based on their ability to pay, and universities are judged by the level of their fees. If the latter is the vision of the future of higher education after six years of a Labour Government, God help students coming through our schools at present.

Alan Johnson: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"congratulates the Government on its plan to abolish up-front tuition fees and to raise the threshold for repayment of loans from £10,000 to £15,000; endorses the further steps that the Government is taking to widen participation amongst students from deprived backgrounds—the establishment of the Office for Fair Access, the introduction from 2004–05 of a £1,000 grant for students from the poorest backgrounds and better support for part-time students; welcomes the sustained investment in higher education through annual increases of 6 per cent. in real terms over the next three years; and recognises the need to maintain UK universities at the forefront of world research and to equip the UK workforce with the high level skills needed to compete in the global marketplace."
	I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) for ensuring that I have this opportunity to celebrate my first week in my new job at the Dispatch Box, and for his kind comments. He is a fellow Yorkshire MP, and he has a great heritage—I have found out that his father was a postman—so I hope that the debate will not be the end of a beautiful friendship.
	We have the prospect, in fact, of a further debate on the same topic on a motion from the Conservative Opposition on Wednesday. May I note that it is always comforting for a Johnson to stand opposite a Boswell? Historically, the two clans have got on, and I look forward to working in my new brief and to jousting with the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) over the coming—I hope—months and years.
	The Liberal Democrats at least accept the need to increase investment in higher education, but they are not willing to accept that the graduates who benefit from university education should make any contribution whatsoever. Meanwhile, the Conservative Opposition oppose extra investment, deny any need for expansion and wish to remove £430 million of existing revenue, thus abolishing up to 80,000 university places and 13,000 lecturers. We accuse both Opposition parties of ducking fundamental issues at the heart of the debate, because those issues are too difficult and too controversial.
	The principal issue is how we can ensure that our world-class universities—ancient and modern—are properly equipped to succeed in the increasingly dynamic and competitive international environment in which they operate today. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough argues that with 43 per cent. of the relevant age group now in higher education, we can finance the sector in the same way as we did 40 years ago when only 6 per cent. of students enjoyed a university education. The Liberal Democrats say that we should fund existing numbers through higher taxes, that we should fund future expansion through higher taxes, and that, for good measure, we should provide housing benefit and income support to students during the summer holidays—also, I presume, through the same higher taxes.
	I take issue with a number of detailed points made by the hon. Gentleman about the figures and with some of the misinformation emanating from the Liberal Democrats. For the moment, however, let me deal just with the issue of principle at the heart of the debate.
	Lord Dearing chaired the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education that was set up by the previous Government, with bipartisan support, in 1996. His report, published in 1997, was probably the most comprehensive examination of the subject since Robbins in 1962. On funding, Lord Dearing said that there should be a balance. Funding should come from society through taxation, from employers through the cost of continuing education and training for their employees, and from those who benefit from higher education. Specifically, he said:
	"There is widespread recognition of the need for new sources of funding for higher education. We have concluded that those with higher education are the main beneficiaries through improved employment prospects and pay. As a consequence we suggest that graduates in work should make a greater contribution to the costs of higher education in future."
	I know Lord Dearing; he was the chairman of the Post Office, and I jousted with him on many occasions. He is by no means an elitist who does not want to expand higher education to youngsters from working-class backgrounds. After the most rigorous examination, analysis and appraisal, conducted by an esteemed committee, he made that very fair assessment about future funding.
	The Government do not argue that the taxpayer should not make a significant contribution; we do not argue that students should meet the cost of their tuition. We are increasing funding to the sector by 6 per cent. in real terms in each of the next three years. We have halted, and begun to reverse, the 36 per cent. real-terms fall in funding per student that the previous Conservative Government presided over between 1989 and 1997. By 2005–06, we will be spending £10 billion a year on higher education, which is equivalent to £400 a year paid by every income tax-payer in England—whether they went to university or not. We are not proposing to change the situation: the labourer will continue to subsidise the lawyer; the postman will continue to subsidise the philosopher.

David Rendel: Does the Minister accept that there is no correlation between the introduction of tuition fees and the expansion of funding for higher education?

Alan Johnson: No, I do not accept that; nor do I accept that the evidence shows that the introduction of tuition fees has put children from working-class backgrounds off entering higher education—a point that I shall discuss later—just as, if we look back 30 or 40 years, when there were full grants and no tuition fees, I do not accept that there is any indication that it was easier for children from working-class backgrounds to go into higher education.
	UK public-supported financial aid to students is the highest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and that will remain the case if our new funding proposals are adopted. With a record like that, and given the political minefield that we need to cross, the temptation is to do nothing.

Anne Campbell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as I missed his opening remarks owing to my attendance at a Standing Committee.
	Many Labour Members accept the need to get extra finance into the higher education sector, but will my hon. Friend consider the proposal, set out in my early-day motion 994, that tuition fees should be raised across the board instead of being differentially charged by universities? That would certainly achieve his objective of raising money and would do away with the differential aspect of top-up fees.

Alan Johnson: I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in this matter and her contribution to the debate. After all my seven days in the job, my assessment is that we broke through a voodoo curse in January, because we accepted in our White Paper and in our statement that universities vary, that the quality of their courses varies and that there is a diverse system out there. To introduce a flat-rate system would be unfair, especially to students who may be following a less expensive course, and it would create more problems than it would solve. However, I appreciate that my hon. Friend's argument is different from that being pursued by the two Opposition parties and I shall certainly consider all the points carefully.

Tim Boswell: In the light of what the Minister has just said, if a situation were to arise—as I anticipate it might—where the majority of higher education institutions wanted to charge top-up fees in order to support their finances and the differential element were to occur in practice, would he be concerned about that and would he feel the need to look into it?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised a similar point when he talked about all universities putting a £3,000 fee on all courses. We should be extremely concerned about that, but we do not believe that it will happen. We believe that the proposals will create a marketplace, but the situation outlined by the hon. Member for Daventry would be a matter for concern.

Graham Brady: The Minister says that it would be unfair if students paid more than was spent on their courses. Does he accept that less money is currently being spent on some social science courses than is being taken from the students in their tuition fees and that that will get worse under the Government's proposals?

Alan Johnson: I am advised by colleagues who know much more about such things than I do that that is simply not true, but doubtless I shall be able to respond when I have been longer in the job.
	We are also convinced that higher education must expand to meet the rising skill needs of the knowledge-driven economy, and we therefore plan to work towards a seven percentage point increase in the participation rate of young people in higher education by 2010.

Peter Bradley: My hon. Friend mentions the fact that the White Paper recognises the variable quality of universities. Can he explain how introducing top-up fees will close the gap between the best and the worst of those universities; or is that not the purpose?

Alan Johnson: I was responding to a specific suggestion to have a blanket increase in tuition fees, and I was making a point not only about the variable quality of universities and courses, but about the greatly varying amounts that graduates can expect to earn having gone through university. There is a huge gap in earnings between students who take degrees in medicine and architecture and those who take arts degrees. That is the principal point about variable fees.

David Rendel: Will the Minister give way?

Alan Johnson: I will give way once more, and then I want to make progress.

David Rendel: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Will such differential fees involve charging more for courses such as medicine, where we are desperate to get more students?

Alan Johnson: We will not set the fees; that will be a matter for the universities. That is exactly the point of introducing funding that the universities can use to deal with their problems and needs, rather than using the Liberal Democrat proposal, where the money would come from the taxpayer and be distributed centrally, so higher education would have to take its chances in getting a proportion of that money.
	What unites the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives is their opposition to our proposals to provide long-term financial certainty for higher education by giving universities greater freedom to gain access to new funding streams, principally through the graduate contribution scheme from 2006.
	I do not believe that the Liberal Democrats support expansion at all. Indeed, their leader suggested that there should be a small reduction in the number of people going to higher education. Whatever the level of expansion and the need for additional funding, they certainly believe, as a point of principle, that the taxpayer ought to provide every penny and that graduates should make no contribution whatsoever.

Phil Willis: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was not present when my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) made his speech, but he was making the point that the distribution of students in higher education will change and that there may be a reduction, for example, in students taking honours degrees, as more students take vocational routes, with the Government's proposals for foundation degrees. That seems perfectly reasonable, and it would be found in any market, about which the Government seem so keen.

Alan Johnson: I have not detected wild enthusiasm in the Liberal Democrat party for expanding higher education. We want 50 per cent. of student-age youngsters to be in higher education. The Liberal Democrats have not given a figure, although the Select Committee asked them to give a figure for the expansion in higher education that they want. We are absolutely committed to expansion, and I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman will clarify whether his party supports such expansion, given the moveable feast that is its policy on the issue.
	The Liberal Democrats certainly believe, along with Her Majesty's official Opposition, that none of the money that goes into university education should come from graduates. They believe that graduates should make no contribution whatsoever, but I believe that that ignores two central issues. First, given that we will soon be spending £10 billion a year on higher education, if any additional taxpayers' money were to be available, it would surely be better spent in pre-school and early years education and in other parts of the sector, where the social inequalities that have been mentioned—I will come back to them—take root.
	Secondly, the money would be distributed from the centre. It would not give universities the financial freedom that they need to fund their plans and unleash their power to drive world-class research, innovative knowledge transfer, excellent teaching, high-quality, greater and more flexible provision and fair access.
	For those reasons, we propose to give universities the freedom to set their own tuition fee between £0 and £3,000. That will provide a direct and predictable source of additional revenue. Universities will set the level of the fees, and will have more control over the additional revenue. The arrangements that we propose, including the graduate contribution scheme, are progressive rather than regressive.

George Mudie: rose—

Evan Harris: rose—

Alan Johnson: Just one second.
	The existing up-front fee will be abolished. Neither parents nor students will pay any fees—graduates will pay them. Students from households with a combined income of below £20,000 will have £1,100 deducted from any fees, and will receive a new, non-repayable maintenance grant of £1,000.
	Repayments will commence only when a graduate is earning at least £15,000 a year, and will be calculated on the basis of 9 per cent. on earnings above that new threshold. As a result, a graduate on £18,000 a year will pay £5.20 a week. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough argued that the Government do not accept that not all graduates go into highly paid jobs. We accept that completely, which is why graduates will not pay any money until they are earning at least £15,000. If they dip below £15,000—for example, if a woman takes maternity leave—they will not pay. As there is no real rate of interest, the debt would not accumulate.

George Mudie: I have some sympathy for my hon. Friend, who is new to the office, as I was an Education Minister for a short time. I would advise him not to believe the nonsense that he has been asked to read out. He should have a close look at what he is reading. Given his industrial experience and his constituency, is he really telling the House that working-class kids will be encouraged to go to university? They are not encouraged now because of the fear of a £9,000 debt, and we are projecting a debt of £21,000. Under that policy, does the Minister think that kids in working-class estates will be queuing up to go to university?

Alan Johnson: I wrote these words myself, but that is neither here nor there. I take full responsibility. I would not be in this post or proposing this policy if I felt that it would damage the ability of working-class kids to go to university. I reject completely the arguments that have been advanced. The ability of working-class kids to go to university has more to do with them attaining the necessary qualifications. [Interruption.] I accept that there are other issues, but that is where it starts.
	This is a progressive policy. For those who advocate a graduation tax, this is the best graduation tax without the downside. It is closely linked to earnings. Countries with similar systems have a far greater ratio of working-class kids going to university.

Evan Harris: rose—

Angela Browning: rose—

Andrew Selous: rose—

Alan Johnson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris).

Evan Harris: The Minister must be aware of the academic research on debt aversion. He should be aware that his Department commissioned research from Professor Callender at South Bank university, which showed that the most significant factor dissuading working-class students from poorer backgrounds who had the qualifications to apply was the fear of debt. On the basis of that research, his policy of top-up debt can only deter the people whom he claims he wants to help.

Alan Johnson: I am fully prepared to accept that a wealth of research exists on these issues. I also accept that I have not read every single piece of research. I have read an important statistic, however, that once youngsters from working-class backgrounds get to the stage of acquiring two A-levels, nine out of 10 of them go on to a university education. That is extremely important because it is at the heart of this whole issue. I shall return to it later in the speech, because it was an important part of the hon. Gentleman's contribution.

Andrew Selous: rose—

Angela Browning: rose—

Stephen McCabe: rose—

Alan Johnson: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe).

Stephen McCabe: On the point that was just mentioned, I can understand people's anxiety about debt, but the research is hypothetical in relation to a potential debt in the future. Were the argument wholly accurate, would it not also follow that during the 1960s and 1970s, when there were full grants, children from working-class backgrounds would have made up a majority of entrants to university? Why did they represent such a small proportion?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In addition, under the proposals, we are abolishing upfront fees: neither students nor parents will pay, but graduates will pay at a very advantageous rate.

Angela Browning: rose—

Andrew Selous: rose—

Alan Johnson: I shall give way once more, and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), because of her bondage joke, gets the vote.

Angela Browning: This is a bondage-free question. Has the Minister made any assessment about the 2005 intake? The increased fees are due to kick in in 2006, but we are already receiving representations that many students who would otherwise have taken a gap year in 2005 will not do so, which will lead to a massive increase in applications in that one year. How will he ensure fairness and justice for the 2005 intake?

Alan Johnson: First, I appreciate that the prospectus needs to be ready 18 months in advance, but we are giving plenty of notice that the measure will not be introduced until after the next general election—until 2006. If we can avoid the problems to which the hon. Lady refers in any other way, as she raises pertinent points, we shall look to do so.
	The proposed arrangements, including the graduate contribution scheme, are progressive rather than regressive. I have dealt with the arrangements for repayment. As Professor Nick Barr of the London School of Economics has pointed out, although we are talking about this as debt, it is in fact payroll deduction: it will be paid through the tax system. It is not like a credit card debt. It is important that we look at it in that way.
	The regime is not pernicious or regressive. Part-time, overseas and postgraduate students—who make up around 50 per cent. of the student population—already pay such variable fees and always have done. As part of our proposals, we will give assistance to part-time students for the first time.
	There is one issue, which has already been raised, which unites me with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I do not doubt his commitment to bringing more talented youngsters from working-class backgrounds into higher education, and I hope that he will not doubt my passion to see access widened. He makes the assertion that these proposals would deter youngsters from poor families. The first point to make, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green in an intervention, is that students from a middle-class background were three times more likely than those from manual and unskilled backgrounds to go to university 30 years ago when there were no fees and a generous, non-repayable grant, and they are still three times more likely to go to university now with a £1,100 upfront tuition fee and no maintenance grant. There has been no deterioration in the position since tuition fees were introduced.
	The reasons for this social gap are varied and complex. We do not contend that they are related to university admissions policy. All the evidence indicates that the principal problems concern raising achievement and stimulating and supporting work to widen the range of applications.

Roger Williams: Will the Minister give way?

Alan Johnson: Not yet. I shall do so later.
	Acknowledging that students from low-income backgrounds and their families will be concerned about the affordability of studying for a degree, we have proposed that higher education institutions should enter into an access agreement with the new office for fair access before being allowed to charge variable tuition fees.
	The agreement will cover a five-year period. It will set out the level of the fee and the courses to which the fee applies, and encourage applications from people with disadvantaged backgrounds. In particular, it will record how universities propose to extend bursaries and other financial agreements that they offer. Higher education institutions will also be asked to show how they intend to provide financial advice to prospective students and to explain to them the financial support that they can expect to receive. That will ensure that the graduate contribution scheme and improved student support are not introduced at the expense of our parallel ambition to widen access. Indeed, the concentrated focus with co-ordinated activity at all levels offers a real opportunity to resolve a problem that has blighted our society for too long.

Roger Williams: Has the Minister's Department made any assessment of the arrangements in Wales and Scotland that have led to greater access for students from poorer economic situations? Perhaps he can explain that in terms of the water?

Alan Johnson: I am advised that that has not been the case in Wales. I shall examine the situation in Scotland, but Scotland has always had far greater participation in higher education by youngsters from working-class backgrounds.

Andrew Selous: rose—

Alan Johnson: I shall not give way just yet.
	Our policy is one of expansion, investment and widening participation. The Liberal Democrats' policy, according to evidence given to the Select Committee on Education and Skills by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough the week before last, represents work in progress. When the hon. Gentleman walked into Committee Room 11 to appear before the Committee, he had a policy of providing a £2,000 endowment grant. By the time he left the Committee Room, it had vanished.
	Earlier, there was an interesting exchange about what the endowment grant is. Hon. Members will recall that it is the £2,100 fee paid by students in Scotland after they graduate. It is described as an endowment but it is not entirely dissimilar to the graduate contribution scheme that we plan to introduce. The Liberal Democrats say that charging graduates is wrong, but support charging them £2,100 after they graduate. They call it an endowment fee and say that it will go toward student maintenance grants. It is a non means-tested fee that is payable by all students when they graduate in Scotland, but we are told that there is a huge difference between that and the progressive system that we are introducing in England.
	The original policy of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, which we saw in a Liberal Democrat policy document in January, was to increase the figure from £2,000 to £3,000 in England. It was then reduced to £2,000 in the Liberal Democrats' response to the White Paper in March. In June, the proposal vanished completely.

Phil Willis: It did not.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman says that that did not happen, but the Select Committee's verbatim report suggests that it did.

Phil Willis: I know that the hon. Gentleman is new in his post but surely literacy must feature large in its remit. May I explain the situation, because it is very simple? In Scotland, students may apply for a maintenance grant of up to £2,100. In England, the Government propose to introduce a £1,000 grant. Our latest policy document, which I was asked to present to the Select Committee, as I have done, suggests increasing that amount to £2,100 to match what students receive in Scotland, and says that, rather than having an administrative charge of more than £200 million, it would be far better simply to give students that money. That seems to be sensible.

Alan Johnson: As I said, the policy changed, as is clear in, I think, paragraph 6 of the report presented to the Select Committee. That was one policy that changed in the work in progress.
	It was also Liberal Democrat policy to increase the threshold for repayment of student loans from £10,000 to £13,000. When they read our White Paper with the proposal to increase the threshold to £15,000, they followed suit. That smacks of making it up as they go along. It also shows that they aim to imitate the left in some parts of the country by matching one element of Labour's progressive package and to outflank the Tories by following their agenda of no graduate contribution whatsoever, irrespective of how that affects their costings.
	Worse than that is the misrepresentation by the Liberal Democrats of the issues at the heart of the debate, in particular social fairness. Just over a fortnight ago, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), made a speech entitled "Labour is failing the poorest on education". It was based on a central tenet, highlighted in their press release. The right hon. Gentleman said that six years ago 17 per cent. of students from socio-economic groups D and E went to university and that today the figure is just 8 per cent. The main feature of his speech was to state:
	"One of the greatest indictments against the Labour government is that the proportion of students going into higher education from the two lowest economic groups"—
	D and E—
	"has fallen since Tony Blair came into office in 1997."
	One of the greatest indictments of the Liberal Democrats is that they cannot get their figures right.
	The Liberal Democrats compared two separate sets of figures. Perhaps the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will correct me if I am wrong, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained in a letter that he immediately sent to the leader of Liberal Democrats—he has yet to receive a reply—when a proper comparison of the proportion of people from economic groups D and E who attend university is made, it is clear that it has increased slightly, by 1 per cent. Hon. Members should remember that that is since 1997, after the introduction of tuition fees. The Liberal Democrats' main contention is that tuition fees have affected the number of poor students going into higher education.
	In the same speech, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West also said that income per student has continued to decline since Labour came into power. It has not. When we came into office, it was £5,059. It is currently £5,155 and it will be £5,338 by 2005–06. Perhaps with the benefit of that fresh information, in the moveable feast that passes for Liberal Democrat policy making, Liberal Democrats will arrive at a point where they drop the dogma, ditch the opportunism and face up to the hard facts. Their policies cannot guarantee extra resources for universities. They do not promote an expansion in higher education, so they jeopardise economic growth in the knowledge-driven economy of the 21st century. They would squander the huge advances that we are making in all parts of our education service. It is a fiscally irresponsible cop-out from the problems that our White Paper seeks to address.

Tim Boswell: I am sure the House will be relieved to know that I do not propose, unless severely provoked, to speak at length. There are two reasons for that. The first is that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and I will deploy our thinking at greater length on Wednesday. The second, and very good, reason is that in no sense do I wish to deny Back Benchers the opportunity of expressing their thoughts. I should like to hear from a number of them, especially those on the Labour Benches, if not today, then on Wednesday.
	I confirm that the official Opposition have no problem with the Liberal Democrat motion.
	We shall support it in the Lobby, although keen students of the Order Paper will note that our amendment, which was not selected, indicates that in crucial respects it does not go far enough. I am reminded of Sherlock Holmes's remark about the Bradshaw railway timetable, whose language, he said, was
	"nervous and terse, but limited."
	It would be remiss of me not to begin by mentioning the appointment of the hon. Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) as the new Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education. We have had fruitful dealings in the past on matters of employment law, which I always enjoyed, and I have watched his progress with interest. He has some associations with Ruskin and, I believe, is an alumnus of that college.

Alan Johnson: No, I am not.

Tim Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is denying it, but I would have no problem with such a claim because nearly all of us, as well as the great bulk of the university sector, are seriously interested in promoting access for able people. It would be daft if the universities disabled themselves by not drawing on all the talent that they can. Because of our concern about the substantial deterrent posed by some of the Government proposals we are supporting the Liberal Democrat motion. However, I am sure that the Minister will enjoy his challenging post, and the attributes that he needs for it are a readiness to listen and a basic sympathy with all those involved in the sector. To put it a little less delicately, as there are over 1.5 million students in higher education alone who, together with their parents, partners and families, make up a constituency of over 5 million people, he had better listen to what they say.

Anne Campbell: I am a little puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's remarks, particularly about access. If the Conservative party intends to increase access, which is the Government's policy, I welcome that. However, can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether its current policy means increasing access or, in fact, reducing numbers and limiting access?

Tim Boswell: With great respect—and I shall seek to develop this point later—the hon. Lady is confusing numerical participation with access, which is at the heart of the difficulties in the Government's policy.
	May I offer a firm prediction as someone who has done the Minister's task in the past? If he is at all disposed to dig in—and I fear for the higher education sector if he is—he will be deluged with classical analogies, which will be used for different reasons. I intend to abuse one to illustrate what he will probably be asked to do by his colleagues in government. Like Odysseus, he will be lashed to the mast so that he cannot hear the sirens who, in this case, are entirely right. The Labour vessel will go straight down the whirlpool, will founder and be lost without trace. However, I shall pursue those analogies no longer, if only in the interests of time.
	To pick up some of the points that have been made, I very much echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said about the gap year. I hope that the Minister will apply himself to that concern. He sought to reply to a written question of mine the other day, but he did not quite do justice to the serious issue of the bunching of student numbers. Picking up a remark of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who opened the debate, I remind the Minister that the settlement of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who was Secretary of State for Education and Employment in 1997, was meant to last for at least 20 years, but wore out and rusted up in five. The Minister needs to be aware of that, and should be sceptical as to whether his proposals will provide a firmer, long-term basis for proceeding, as he has claimed. I am concerned about one point that he exposed and did not answer adequately—whether or not the decision to charge top-up fees would be in the hands of universities.
	He seemed to think that that was all right, but almost in the same breath he said that Ministers would be extremely concerned about it. He cannot have it both ways. Either it is up to the universities to make that decision, or it is not.
	My final point in commenting on what has passed so far is that if a graduate went through, as people might have done a few years ago in the days of City bonuses, to a top rate of income tax at 41 per cent., including the 1 per cent. national insurance surcharge, and they were then faced with the repayment of their student loan at 9 per cent., the sum marginal rate by my book would be 50 per cent. That figure may have a certain resonance, in view of recent events. That is by way of initial welcome and warning to the Minister.
	The Government amendment to the Liberal Democrat motion is disappointing. I am not at all encouraged by their ability to pat themselves on the back quite so bluntly. There is in the amendment, for example, a reference to abolishing upfront tuition fees. If the Government introduce a measure and then say, "This is outrageous. We are going to take it away", they should not expect the thanks of the electorate for doing so.
	Then there is the self-praise for raising the threshold for loan repayments from £10,000 to £15,000. The Minister should reflect on the fact that that figure is still lower than the repayment threshold was under the Conservative scheme—much derided by Labour—that preceded it, when it was 85 per cent. of average earnings, let alone the figure that it would now have reached. Again, Ministers should not pat themselves on the back.
	The amendment goes on to refer to the Office for Fair Access. In responding to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), I mentioned the radical Government confusion between participation and stimulating access.

Stephen McCabe: I confess that I, too, am suffering from that confusion. The hon. Gentleman says that we should not confuse participation with access, but does it not follow logically that if we cut the numbers, some children from somebody's family will be denied a place? That is an access issue, whoever one is.

Tim Boswell: Ah—so it could be anybody. That is interesting. If I were to give the hon. Gentleman a lecture, I would point out to him, with respect, that possibly sometimes against the better judgment of the Conservative Government, for whom I was not doing the job in the very early 1990s, the expansion went from about 10 or 12.5 per cent. of the cohort of young people to 33 per cent., almost in the twinkling of an eye—within two or three years. That was the biggest expansion there has ever been.

David Wright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Boswell: No. If there is to be a curtailment of the expansion plan, and if we are to be able to take out the Mickey Mouse degrees, as they were so elegantly described by the Minister for Children, I should have thought that there was ample scope for everyone who was qualified, deserved it and would benefit from a higher education to be able to attend, and that is before one even starts on drop-out.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Tim Boswell: I have given way a number of times. I shall give way once to a Liberal Democrat.

John Pugh: Curbing the Mickey Mouse degrees sounds a fine idea, but are the Conservatives proposing quotas for university departments or telling universities what courses they may or may not run?

Tim Boswell: I am sure we shall be able to achieve our objectives in a way that will not damage the interests of higher education, and it will reflect quality in a way that is not always evident at present.
	The introduction of a £1,000 grant, for which Labour praises itself, is a lower grant than the Government were bequeathed in 1997. Interestingly, the Liberal Democrat figure of £2,000, when reduced to real terms, is also not much higher than the figure left in 1997. Labour goes on to congratulate itself on an annual funding increase of 6 per cent. in real terms. We have all seen what a real-terms increase in school funding means. We know what it means in further education, and I forecast that the same will happen in higher education.

David Wright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Boswell: No. I have given way a number of times, and I respectfully said that I wanted to get on with my speech.
	We are told that Labour wants the university sector to be at the forefront of research. I agree with that. It wants a reference to high-level skills, but it will be clear from recent comment, including by the Learning and Skills Council, that crucial national shortages are at levels 2 and 3—the craft and technician level. I should like briefly to quote this week's edition of The Economist, which refers to two main parts of the Government's higher education policy:
	"To get people to pay more of the costs of their university education and to get more people to go there. New figures suggest that the second part of the policy may be undermining the first."
	It is interesting that the Liberal Democrats have confined their remarks to top-up fees. They had every choice; they could have raised tuition fees, but they decided not to do so. Perhaps that position is one advance on the Governments amendment, which does not mention top-up fees at all. I am not sure whether the Government are proud of that or sorry about it. Of course, the Liberal Democrats' principles—I shall have occasion to return to this issue—would enable them to propose different policies in different parts of the United Kingdom, although they now seem to be trying to coalesce them. There is nothing magical about Liberal Democrats proposing different policies for different parts of the United Kingdom. In my experience, they are happy to propose different policies in each constituency if they feel that that is to their electoral advantage.
	Without embarrassing the Liberal Democrats too much by reverting to the past, and although this is not the immediate subject of the debate, I should like to remind them about the famous 1p on income tax. I happen to live next to the River Cherwell, a tributary of the River Thames. We all know that water that comes out of the tap in London will have been recycled three times since it started out in the tributary below my house. I have a horrible feeling that that may be exactly the way in which the money is to be raised to finance their notional schemes.

Angela Browning: Is this not another case of loaves and little fishes? The same thing happened with regard to the extra 1p on income tax. For years, the Liberal Democrats made spending pledges against that policy, which they subsequently ditched. They are now going to introduce what I suppose must be known as the Neath tax, as they intend to charge an extra tax on those earning more than £100,000, and are making yet another spending pledge that has to be set against that increased tax. Again, the figures do not add up.

Tim Boswell: I was about to make the same point. A distinguished Cabinet member, the Secretary of State for Wales and Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain), who has a lot of jobs to do for the Government, was lobotomised when he tried to say the same thing on Friday and was not allowed to say it. Looking at the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, I am delighted to see that there is no sign of his having been lobotomised yet. Perhaps his party is committed to a plurality of views. More seriously—we need not go into what might be termed the control freakery on either the Labour or Liberal Democrat Front Benches—it was very interesting that a number of other Labour Members attacked the said Cabinet Minister on the grounds of his economic ineptitude and the incompetence that had been shown in the matter. I believe that both the political analysis and economic calculations that drove the suggestion of a 50 per cent. rate are equally suspect.
	Before somebody fantasises the opposite, it is important to point out that in historical terms, Conservative Governments have never charged tuition fees to students. Incidentally, they have also offered maintenance grants to students. When I was Minister with responsibility for higher education a decade ago, we did not charge students. I may say to the House—I do not think that this will be generally known—that we carried out a desk study long before Dearing into whether or not we should do so. The study showed that, provided that growth in numbers was restrained, we could hold the line and not charge. I think that that is an interesting point, and it is the judgment that we made when we considered the matter.

David Wright: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report by Professor Barr about the £1.6 billion funding gap in the Conservative party's current proposals? Indeed, no investment is proposed for vocational training, which his party is also proposing to enhance.

Tim Boswell: I am interested in that. I do not necessarily have to agree with Professor Barr about everything, not least the fact that he does not think that loans function as a kind of tax. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that we all need to reflect hard on the contingent liability on the Treasury of the uplift in student loans that will be required to finance the increased tuition fees. Only last week, the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education gave me a commitment that they will be financed in full by additional student loans. That liability is not fully charged for because it has zero real interest, so there is an effective interest rate subsidy of some 3 per cent. It is rolling up into a gigantic contingent liability that will sink some of the Government's expansion plans. That is quite apart from this week's speculation in The Times Higher Educational Supplement.
	I return to the Liberal Democrat motion. The Liberal Democrats claim to have scrapped tuition fees in Scotland by the simple expedient of saying that they have done so. In their alternative Budget, they pledged that there would be no tuition fees or top-up fees. The motion says nothing about tuition fees, although we have had a certain amount of discussion about the subject.

Phil Willis: It is about top-up fees.

Tim Boswell: The hon. Gentleman says that it is about top-up fees. He could have had a debate on the whole range of student finance, but for some reason he was diffident about tuition fees. I do not know why.
	If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about top-up fees, let me in return talk about Scottish graduate endowment liabilities. In my view—and I have heard no adequate argument to the contrary—that is like paying for one's summer holiday with one's Barclaycard. One pays in the end, and usually ends up paying a little bit more on top. Conservative Members believe that student debt, which the Secretary of State admitted is likely to average £15,000 to £21,000—of course, that excludes any additional private debt—will be unsustainable. It will be particularly difficult in cases where there is more than one child in a family and the parents feel obliged to make a contribution towards their education and in cases where courses are expensive or protracted for academic reasons.
	The whole paraphernalia of notional tuition fees and rebates according to income has already become impossibly complex. It brings in very little in real terms—less than half its nominal yield—and is an example of a Government chasing their own tail. We therefore propose radical plans to abolish all fees, including top-up fees. It is estimated that that would cost £700 million. We would take the hard decision to abolish the 50 per cent. target and accept that some of the less successful higher education activity might be curtailed. We would definitely abolish the Office for Fair Access, because that function should be carried out by the institutions, which are well committed to that objective. We would put a fresh thrust behind vocational education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said, Liberal Democrat News provided a ringing endorsement of our policies in the shape of Jonathan Calder's article, which explained that my hon. Friend's idea of
	"getting rid of tuition fees, and financing the move by scrapping plans to extend the number of students even further, has a lot to be said for it."
	I agree. It is useful to have allies on occasion.
	If we stay with Labour policies, we will have a tax on learning. We will not have lifelong learning, but at least half-lifetime debt.
	If we were to support the Liberal Democrats' ideas without further equivocation, we should be copping out on the hard choices, and we should not be able to resource individual courses adequately. I give them credit, however, for seeing that the Government's fees policy will not work, and we shall give them our electoral support in the Lobby tonight.

John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend accept that, in seeking a philosophical justification for the admirable commitment to the abolition of the 50 per cent? participation target, he need look no further than the wise words of R. H. Tawney, who said:
	"Equality of educational provision is not identity of educational provision",
	and suggested that doing the best for every young person did not mean, and ordinarily should not mean, doing the same for every young person.

Tim Boswell: I am immensely reassured to have that endorsement from my hon. Friend, and I do not have too much difficulty with the words and wisdom of R. H. Tawney. I genuinely feel that one of the built-in difficulties in the Government's present stance is that, by concentrating on the target of getting 50 per cent. of young people into higher education that they are driving forward, they are both making a judgment and distorting or devaluing the offer that is made to the other 50 per cent. of young people, who also need to have their skills, aptitudes and talents developed.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Boswell: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, not least—this is a dreadful thing to have to admit—because I happen to know that he was taught by my mother-in-law.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that I taught in an institution that was not an ivory tower institution but one that was proud of its record of expanding greatly the number of people from disadvantaged backgrounds who came into it. If he believes in supporting that kind of student and encouraging their access to higher education, and if he is also arguing the case for restricting the numbers—for whatever reason—how many students from middle-class or better-off families will he cut out of the system to encourage students from communities such as mine to come forward?

Tim Boswell: That is an interesting question. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that I am not in planning mode, now or ever, but we need to make arrangements whereby students of ability can go forward to the kind of education that is most appropriate for them. Students of lesser ability might perhaps not be encouraged or gulled into going on expensive enterprises round the country which do not enhance their career or other prospects. This is a desperately serious matter.

Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Boswell: I have given way to the hon. Lady once. I must now conclude my remarks.
	When this debate has run its course, although we might not have seen the colour of the Government's proposed legislation, it will fall to the next Conservative Government to discharge their historic responsibilities. We can, we will and we must offer a fair deal for students, and we need to get out of the disastrous hole into which the present Government are leading us.

Gordon Marsden: Brevity can be a virtue in motions that are put before the House, but that is not always necessarily the case. I am afraid that it is not the case for either of the motions tabled by the Liberal Democrats today. The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, whom I warmly welcome to his new appointment, made the point that we have to consider the context when deciding on the solutions in a complex financial situation.
	It is worth reminding the House of that context. It is one in which university lecturers and professors have seen their pay rise a third as fast as that of the rest of the work force in the past 20 years, in which staff-student ratios have almost doubled in that time, and in which we have up to an £8 billion backlog in terms of infrastructure and repairs. I would remind hon. Members that this is an integral part of the debate about student finance, because there is no point in improving access or getting equitable funding arrangements for students if the universities and institutions to which they go cannot do the business for those students. That needs to be taken on board in relation to everything that we say and do.
	Something had to be done, and I would like to quote what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said when he introduced the White Paper:
	"Putting off the difficult choices will not help universities (who have suffered drift for too long), it does not help students (who want a better and fairer system of finance), it does not help parents (who are currently having to find money up front)."
	All those issues have to be addressed in the current situation. If there were any doubt as to the seriousness and urgency of that, an audit from HSBC shows that more than one in five British universities are in financial trouble and risk being closed or taken over. That research uncovered a growing gap between the rich and poor institutions. It said that a few well-known ones were forging ahead and capturing international research income, but that others, mainly former polytechnics, were finding it increasingly hard to balance the books. The Government need to take that research on board for two reasons. First, it gives some justification to the fees regimes that they are now proposing; and secondly, it gives a warning about the restriction, in terms of sheep and goats, in relation to higher education teaching and research. I shall return to that issue later.
	What has been the response of the Opposition parties in this situation? We shall hear more from Conservative Front-Bench Members in the debate on Wednesday, but what we have heard already is rather sad and depressing. In fact, they have gone for the worst sort of incoherent The Daily Telegraph populism.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman was saying a few moments ago that the problem was that the rich, expensive top-quality universities had plenty of money, and that the old polytechnics were falling behind, yet we have heard the Minister say that it is precisely those rich, expensive top-quality universities that will have the top-up fees, and that the others will not. How does the hon. Gentleman believe that that is going to improve the situation?

Gordon Marsden: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not my recollection of what the Minister said. The important point is that we need pluralistic funding mechanisms that address the problems, especially those of the post-1992 universities to which I have referred.
	The Conservatives have come up with a rather weak and sad prospectus, and I do not intend to dwell on it at length except to say that, having given a sort of green light—albeit without funding—to the expansion of the old polytechnics in the post-1992 university settlement, they now propose a sentence of death on those universities, because even if their figures added up, the effects of their proposals would be catastrophic. The number of university places under threat would be 90,000 at the moment, and probably 150,000 over time, representing a 20 per cent. drop overall. Indeed, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who is not in his place at the moment, said as much in his press release of 30 May, when he stated:
	"Under the Conservatives, the university sector would be smaller."

Andrew Selous: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that introducing a specific hypothecated tax on learning is bound to have a disincentive effect? Does he further accept that we already have a form of graduate tax in this country? It is called income tax.

Gordon Marsden: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he does not yet know what I am going to advocate. I was not aware that the Conservatives were proposing to introduce a hypothecated tax on learning. I thought that they were proposing to scrap a whole series of fees, which would have a catastrophic effect on the funding of the system and the students.
	Let me turn to the Liberal Democrats' motion, and to the speech by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), for whom I have great respect, having served with him on the Select Committee. His party has produced an ambitious list of the things that we could expect from a Liberal Democrat utopia, including the abolition of top-up fees, changes to the grant system, and all sorts of funding suggestions. The kindest thing to be said about the proposals—as the Minister noted earlier—is that they are a moveable feast. The question of how these things should be funded must also be addressed.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough began the process in an interview with ePolitix on 30 December. I do not know whether it was seasonal good will that was enthusing him at the time, but what he said then was somewhat different from what he has said before the Select Committee and in the House today. In that interview, he said:
	"We don't accept the premises on which the government is going into this review; that you have to find billions of pounds and there has to be significantly more students going to university."
	With respect, that is not what he has been telling us today.
	Let us look at the figures that have come from the Liberal Democrats. The 50p tax rate for earnings above £100,000, which was in their alternative Budget in February, was supposed to produce £4.5 billion, £2 billion of which was to be devoted to abolishing tuition and top-up fees, but at the same time there was a section that dealt with the reintroduction of grants, which was not costed. By the time the leader of the Liberal Democrats took up the theme in the June lecture, the extra money from that tax rise had shrunk to £4 billion. Now we do not have a specific figure on higher education's share. There is merely a commitment that a substantial part of that expenditure will be on higher education.
	When the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough appeared before the Select Committee on 12 June, he was questioned by two members of the Select Committee. There was a discrepancy between what he said the cost of getting rid of tuition fees would be—£436 million—and what the leader of the Liberal Democrats said in his speech, it would be which was £700 million. We must look with great concern and some scepticism at the figures that have been bandied around by the Liberal Democrats.

Phil Willis: Just to clarify that point—the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) mentioned the figure in his remarks, too—it was the Secretary of State who estimated that, by the time the new Government policy came in in 2005–06, the cost of getting rid of tuition fees would be £700 million.

Gordon Marsden: Obviously, as the hon. Gentleman said in his evidence to the Select Committee—I cannot find the exact phrase—the process is an evolving one. Perhaps the unkindest thing that could be said about the Liberal Democrat proposals is that they have to win a general election and to form a Government in order to put them into operation. I do not have a crystal ball; I do not know what the result of the next general election will be—but charity and a love of fantasy allow me to entertain another possibility. It is that what the Liberal Democrats have in mind is something rather dramatic, something along the lines of what the conservative fundamentalists in the United States believe in: a second Liberal coming, where we will all be instantly enraptured in a Liberal Democrat paradise where all those things would take place.

Phil Willis: Hallelujah.

Gordon Marsden: The hon. Gentleman says, "Hallelujah." He will be familiar with the Book of Revelation. We can envisage the scene of the four and 20 elders robed in white and crowns of gold, among them Asquith, Gladstone and Lloyd George. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough would be there too, with his harp and golden bowl of incense. All together they would be intoning the words, "Holy, holy, holy is the immortal penny that is to be spent and spent and spent again to create the Liberal new Jerusalem."
	That is a lovely image to conjure up. Perhaps in that enraptured state, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, we can expect a new miracle of the loaves and the fishes. Perhaps the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will be going around with his basket of funding, taking us round and bringing far more money back at the end of the day, as the parable had it.

Phil Willis: Stick to the day job.

Gordon Marsden: I will stick to the day job and return the hon. Gentleman from heaven to earth and to the cruel realities of the Select Committee, where my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) questioned Baroness Sharp of Guildford and the hon. Gentleman on what was going to happen to that funding. It is instructive to repeat the exchange. My hon. Friend said:
	"I have two points. Can I ask specifically is this extra tax, the 50p plus, going to be hypothecated for higher education, all of it?"
	Baroness Sharp of Guildford replied, "No." My hon. Friend asked:
	"It is approximately £2 billion?"
	The reply came:
	"No, it raises £4.5 billion."
	My hon. Friend said
	"But half of it approximately is going to higher education?"
	The reply was:
	"Yes. Insofar as we have identified a source of funding, this is what has been done, but it is not necessarily being hypothecated directly to it."
	There we have it—no ring-fencing, no hypothecation, no guarantees whatever. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and Baroness Sharp of Guildford are back in the holy city being ambushed by the 10-headed and seven-horned beast of the apocalypse in the shape of the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), who will dash the cup from their lips, take the golden bowl away and use it to fund some of the other utopian schemes that the Liberal Democrats are putting forward. The reality is that a lack of ring-fencing and a lack of hypothecation will always jeopardise any substantial initiatives that are brought before the House to improve funding through the general taxation purse. That is also an argument against a graduate tax. A graduate tax, even assuming that it were to generate substantial sums in a short period, would always be hostage to the slings and arrows of electoral fortune. It would always be hostage to whatever position the Treasury, whatever party were in government, were to take.

John Bercow: It is extremely generous of the hon. Gentleman even to envisage the scenario of a Liberal Democrat Government, given that he has explained how tortuously unco-ordinated their position on tuition fees is. May I put it to him in a cross-party spirit that probably the best and most succinct summary of the Liberal Democrats came from Harold Macmillan? He said that the Liberals had some good ideas and some original ideas, but unfortunately their good ideas were not original and their original ideas were not any good.

Gordon Marsden: I find it difficult to better what the hon. Gentleman has said on that point.
	To return to the graduate tax, the estimates of what we would receive in income from it do not take into account what would happen to people who move abroad, self-assessment and people in self-employment. I personally have always entertained grave concerns that we would have the same problems in extracting money via a graduate tax as we had in extracting contributions from the self-employed under the Child Support Agency. That point needs to be taken on board.
	I do not want to be entirely unkind about the Liberal Democrats and their proposals, because they have some good thoughts and good points. When he came before the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said that in the 21st century the Liberal Democrats would like to see a far more flexible higher education product
	"based on a modular unit accreditation system akin to that of the Open University . . . We believe that . . . the majority of future students will study part time and not full time: that they will study incrementally . . . that increasingly they will access part or all of their education via the internet".
	All that is true and reasonable, but the Government recognise that, too. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be aware that there is an old proverb:
	"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."
	The trouble is that the horses that the Liberal Democrats would send students and university staff on would be skin-and-bone nags. They have not produced a single argument today that justifies the funding process that they are attempting to foist on the House. There have to be mechanisms that guarantee both equity and increasing university funding.
	How do the Government's proposals stack up in that respect? It is not appreciated sometimes that they have already seen off some of the wilder ambitions of the Russell group, if one remembers the figures that were quoted by the head of Imperial college of £10,000 and £12,000. That is important. We cannot risk replicating the educational apartheid that existed between grammar schools and secondary moderns in our universities with educational apartheid between the Russell group universities and the new universities.
	On abolishing upfront fees, that is an excellent thing to do.
	Raising the fees threshold to £15,000 is a start, but it is not enough. Before the last general election, the Select Committee recommended a figure of £20,000, which the Government would do well to revisit. Nor, for that matter, are grants of £1,000 enough; we should look seriously at a linkage with at least the education maintenance allowance rate. Dr. Anna Vignoles, research fellow at the London School of Economics centre for the economics of education, made an interesting suggestion earlier this year:
	"The solution is better targeting of more generous grants for the poorest students. Some poor students might also have their first year's tuition fees paid to provide them with a university 'taster'."
	That suggestion is worth taking up. Indeed, NATFHE has also argued strongly for a linkage with the education maintenance allowance.
	Progress has been made in the White Paper in respect of part-time students. The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education rightly pointed out—indeed, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) did so as well—that part-time students in this country have never previously received financial support. That point needs to be taken on board in terms of what the Government are doing through the White Paper. More needs to be done for postgraduates and part-timers. I caution the Government against assuming that foundation degrees will solve everything. I doubt whether they will, and one needs to bear it in mind that they are a means to an end. They are a start; they are not a way of getting the 50 per cent. involvement rate on the cheap.
	The suggestion that there should be a definitive split between research and teaching needs to be looked at with great concern—one cannot predicate and ring-fence achievement in that way at this time. It is perfectly possible for one university to do far better than another in terms of a particular department. The point is underlined by statistics released in just the past two or three weeks, which reveal that Oxford Brookes university's research assessment exercise grading for history was higher than Oxford university's.
	If we are to have top-up fees, they must offer additional revenue, and extra money for higher education must be ring-fenced. We need to go further on funding, and the challenge is one for the Treasury. I have made suggestions about extra funding via a leisure technology levy, a higher education challenge fund, greater tax-exempt donations, and a pound-for-pound tax relief. The Government need to take all such suggestions on board if they are to persuade Members of this House, who are rightly concerned about what the impact of the introduction of top-up fees on their cohort will be.
	In 20 years as a part-time teacher for the Open university and in 12 years as a magazine editor, I dealt with all sorts of students and their various conditions, and also with academics. I, too, was a first-generation university student, and I participated in the Select Committee that produced two reports before the last general election that looked carefully at the entire issue of student access and retention. That process has taught me that this is a complex situation that is not amenable to simple headline solutions. The Tories would definitively shut down the life chances and opportunities of thousands of students as a result of their new proposals. The Liberal Democrats, by not having a coherent higher education policy, would risk doing so as well, through the law of unintended consequences.
	I am not pretending that the Government's White Paper is perfect—it is not—but it offers a reasonable first stab at a coherent narrative for 21st century higher education. It needs to be refined and revised, so that top-up fees in particular are not seen as a permanently escalating institution. Once universities are in a position to access additional funding, the scope for top-up fees should tapered down, rather than up. However, for the time being the White Paper is the only coherent show in town. Anyone who wants to challenge its premises will have to come up with a much more coherent and carefully costed alternative than the elastic finances and windy rhetoric that the Liberal Democrats and the Opposition Front Benchers have offered us today.

Peter Duncan: I am very grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I am not a regular participant in education debates in this Chamber for the obvious reason that Scottish education is largely devolved to the Scottish Parliament. This issue does affect me, however, as I have children in education in Scotland who may well attend a higher education institution in England; indeed, I myself attended the University of Birmingham.
	My main aim this evening is to identify the hypocrisy behind the Liberal Democrats' education policy. We in Scotland have a long track record in education; indeed, we have an education system of which we are rightly proud. However, recent changes to student finance and support tell us much about the way in which politics is moving today, particularly in Liberal Democrat circles. In attending a Liberal Democrat Opposition day debate in which they seem to have implied that, if the Government were mistaken enough to introduce top-up fees, a subsequent Liberal Democrat manifesto would offer a commitment to removing them, how could I not comment on their commitment, given in 1999, to abolish tuition fees in Scotland? In their manifesto "Raising the Standard"—an inappropriate title, if ever there was one—the Scottish Liberal Democrats said that
	"we will . . . abolish tuition fees for all Scottish students at UK universities".
	Not only do Scottish students at Scottish universities pay de facto tuition fees after graduation; Scottish students at non-Scottish UK universities still have to pay Labour's £1,000 a year tuition fees.

John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying that its entire thrust is to examine Liberal Democrat policy on tuition fees. Is he aware that the subject for debate is in fact top-up fees, which are not Liberal Democrat policy?

Peter Duncan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observation. I am aware of the substance of the Liberal Democrat motion—indeed, I referred to it in my opening remarks. I am also aware that we are also debating the Government's amendment to the motion, which does refer to tuition fees. In analysing the Liberal Democrats future education policy, it is particularly relevant to their prospects to establish how reliable they are in implementing manifesto commitments. That will be the thrust of my examination in the next few minutes.
	The Liberal Democrats' main message to the people of Scotland in 1999—in fact, it was one of very few messages—was that if elected and put into power, they would abolish tuition fees. The simple fact, as I shall explain, is that they did no such thing.
	The proceedings of the Scottish Parliament do a lot to crystallise exactly how the Liberal Democrats failed to act. During two separate votes in the Scottish Parliament, they had the opportunity to support the Scottish Conservative party and the Scottish National party, which sought to abolish tuition fees full stop. In the light of their 1999 manifesto commitment—
	"we will . . . abolish tuition fees for all Scottish students at UK universities"—
	one would have thought that they could support such a proposal. However, things do not always work that way in Liberal Democrat circles. Instead, they voted with the Labour Executive to force through the graduate tax and to continue with tuition fees in Scotland. The graduate endowment liability looks like tuition fees, breathes like tuition fees and feels like tuition fees; indeed, it is tuition fees.

David Rendel: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that tuition fees pay for tuition and go to the universities, and that none of the money from the graduate endowment goes to the universities?

Peter Duncan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but the simple fact is that the Liberal Democrats undertook to abolish tuition fees as part of their manifesto commitment and blatantly failed to do so. Such behaviour is bringing politics into disrepute. It is, I regret to say, an inevitable consequence of proportional representation and gives politicians a very bad name. The Labour-Liberal Executive—

Stephen McCabe: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and happy to hear his exposition of the inconsistencies of Liberal-Democrat Front Benchers. However, could he explain how the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) could say in January 2002 that he did not
	"mind the principle of charging differential fees . . . If it's true that the Government is going back to abolish up front fees, and say that everything should be paid back by the individual student afterwards, that's fine by me."?
	Does not the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) find that slightly inconsistent with the policy now espoused by his party?

Peter Duncan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but we are talking about two separate matters. I was talking about a manifesto commitment written in black and white in "Raising the Standard". Ongoing consultation as a means of developing Opposition policy is not the same: we are talking about two significantly different matters.
	What has the Liberal Democrat about-face in Scottish education policy left us with? Obviously, we have the continuing failure of the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive, who have failed Scotland, but they have also failed Scottish students. I mentioned in an earlier intervention on the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that Scottish students face, on graduating, a marginal tax rate of 42 per cent. How can a party that has sought to increase access contemplate the unfairness of such a marginal tax rate for Scottish students who find themselves in a job with an income of £10,000 a year? My other major criticism of the Liberal-Democrat volte-face is that they forgot about the Cubie report and the £20,000 minimum income level, and did a deal in smoke-filled rooms behind closed doors—the appalling circumstances in which Liberal Democrats frequently find themselves throughout the country.
	Scottish students at English universities still face the £1,000 tuition fees, which I find unacceptable, particularly when my constituency is so near the border at Carlisle. Many of my constituents have family who attend universities in England, and they face having to pay that tuition fee. It is a position that the Scottish Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament would have rectified by awarding a Saltire scholarship, which would have given Scottish students the ability to have the fees reimbursed at the time wherever they chose to study.
	I should like briefly to raise an issue brought to my attention by a constituent, which I believe is particularly significant in respect of top-up and tuition fees—namely, the effect on longer running courses. My constituency was devastated two or three years ago by the foot and mouth outbreak, which highlighted a shortage nationally of veterinary surgeons or others able to undertake immediate research into outbreaks and epidemiology. Those are exactly the sort of courses that require longer study and an in-depth follow-up degree. In some cases, a degree course can take many years longer than the average short-term degree, which the Liberal Democrats would have us accepting throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. Scottish degrees are often four years in comparison with the three years of English universities. What we are seeing amounts to a disincentive to continuing study, and the result of those policies will be truncated education and consequent worsening economic benefits being passed on to my constituents and others throughout the UK.

Andrew Selous: Does my hon. Friend agree that for many young people, the prospect of accumulating up to £20,000 in debt is bad enough in itself, but when we align that with the fact that they will also take on significant liabilities in respect of a mortgage, it will be far too much for many?

Peter Duncan: I am happy to acknowledge that. It is ironic that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough criticised the Government for deferring top-up fees, but then said that it would not do any good in any case. He said that research—an ever-lengthening list of research were, I believe, his actual words—shows that those fees create debt and disincentive. Absolutely! That is why giving in, doing the deal in Scotland and continuing to levy tuition fees has been revealed as a shameful abrogation of the responsibility to implement what appears in manifestos, when given the opportunity to do so. Saying time and again that tuition fees have been abolished in Scotland does not make it so, and will be exposed for the falsehood that it is.
	I make no apology for focusing on the past record of the Liberal Democrats in implementing manifesto commitments. If they insist on continuing their proposal to reverse Government policy on top-up fees, I trust that their past record in Scotland will be held in no small measure as a predictor of how likely they are to reverse that policy in future at UK level.

Paul Farrelly: Before I start, I should like to mention something close to my heart, which I have mentioned previously: the debate has run for two hours, but mine will be only the third contribution from a Back Bencher, which I believe is disgraceful. The House should provide more opportunities for Back Benchers to participate in debates.

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman might consider raising that matter with the Leader of the House, who told us last Thursday that he would make his best endeavours to ensure that Government statements would not be allowed to eat into Opposition time. He has failed in those endeavours at the first opportunity that he has had to protect the time allowed for Back Benchers to speak.

Paul Farrelly: I would prefer to encourage Front Benchers to keep their remarks briefer.
	I, too, welcome the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education to his new ministerial post. I start by congratulating the Government on abolishing upfront tuition fees and on raising the payback threshold for student loans, which are both welcome. I also congratulate them on increasing university funding and on recognising that we need to maintain our universities as among the best in the world.
	Today, however, I particularly congratulate the Government on tabling an amendment that makes no reference to top-up fees whatever. It is a masterpiece of drafting. If the omission is a hint that the Government are having second thoughts about top-up fees, it would be the most welcome development since we started the debate last autumn. It would show that the Government were sensitive to concerns and that they had not lost their political antennae. It would also show that the Government were listening to the Labour party, both in the country and in the House.
	If I may correct the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), not 139, but 180 Labour Members—a clear majority of our Back Benchers—have put their names to motions that say that top-up fees should not be introduced and that the genie must certainly not be let out of the bottle to allow different universities to charge different prices.

David Chaytor: If my hon. Friend's argument is that top-up and differential fees should not be allowed, is he saying that the value of a degree from each university is exactly equal in terms of the life chances that it brings?

Paul Farrelly: I shall answer my hon. Friend's point as I progress with my remarks.
	As the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education limbers up for his new role, I fear that I should not allow my optimism to get the better of me. However, the omission that I mentioned means that the Government hardly demonstrate a resounding feeling of confidence in the central plank of their university policy. By winning the vote on the amendment tonight—I am sure that they will—the Government cannot conclude that they have the House's support for top-up or variable tuition fees. Several Labour Members who oppose that policy have told me that they will vote with the Government tonight for the very reason that the amendment does not refer to top-up fees.
	The drafting is so motherhood and apple pie that I cannot bring myself to vote against it. I could almost support it, save for one important part of the wording. The text asks us to endorse
	"the further steps that the Government is taking to widen participation amongst students from deprived backgrounds".
	The proposal to reintroduce student grants is welcome. Attempting to support part-time students better is also welcome. We are also offered an Office for Fair Access—a toothless tiger, perhaps, but at least an indicator that we are still concerned about access. However, a Government who put access and equality in education at the top of their agenda should do all those things in any case, without introducing a market-based policy of top-up fees, which will work in exactly the opposite direction.

David Chaytor: My hon. Friend mentioned part-time students. Is he also arguing that there should be no differential fees for part-time students? What does he estimate would be the cost of that?

Paul Farrelly: I am addressing my remarks to the broad mass of undergraduates, and I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that.

David Chaytor: Will my hon. Friend give way again?

Paul Farrelly: No, I have already given way to my hon. Friend twice.
	The Government are investing in primary education, and ensuring that kids get A-levels in secondary education, so that they can go to university, but I cannot support the Government on top-up fees because they will make it harder for kids to get to the university of their choice—based on merit, not means—in the future. We just have to look at the evidence. For example, the US has an entrenched multi-tier system, with community colleges, public universities and private universities, including the Ivy League. The cost of going to Ivy League universities is some $40,000 a year. Funnily enough, their much trumpeted bursaries notwithstanding, Ivy League colleges have by far the lowest proportion of students from modest backgrounds. Even so, those private universities are the very institutions that supporters of top-up fees seek to emulate. In the US, the reality is that many poorer students with the necessary qualifications are simply priced out of the market. And many who do go into higher education can afford only two-year, cut-price courses at their local community colleges.
	Another example comes from Canada. When medical schools in Ontario, for instance, increased fees drastically from 1997, the number of students from poorer backgrounds—and there were not that many to start with—fell by a third.
	When my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) had the brief, she told the Education and Employment Committee in February that
	"it is very difficult when you are opening up the market to variable fees to know how the market is going to respond."
	Well, if the concern is to widen participation, that is hardly the best basis on which to base root and branch reform of universities. In fact, it is not difficult to predict how the market will respond. The evidence is there, plain as daylight, from overseas.

Mark Hendrick: Is not my hon. Friend giving extreme examples from the US and Canada? When he and I were at university, probably only 10 per cent. of people went into higher education. Now it is 50 per cent. and it is clear that that cannot be financed purely through income tax. Is not my hon. Friend making a distorted argument?

Paul Farrelly: There are alternatives, and I wish that we could debate them. I am not giving extreme examples. They are mainstream examples, and I encourage my hon. Friend to read the research. Indeed, I will provide him with it after the debate.
	What will happen here is that leading universities—Oxbridge and the Russell Group—which already take the lowest proportion of children from poorer backgrounds, will become ever more the bastions of the better off. With access in mind, how do the Government justify their policy? First, they point to the proposed Office for Fair Access. But OFFA will not set targets and will not interfere with admissions. So in the face of market forces, OFFA will be more like King Canute. Unlike its historical namesake, it will not have to build a dyke to keep the Welsh out, because top-up fees will do that for it. Remarkably, the debate about OFFA has achieved at least one thing so far. Following the assault from the Daily Mail, Bristol last week scrapped its internal state school targets.Participation has already narrowed, not widened.
	Secondly, the Government point to the £3,000 price cap. What price that the cap goes pretty quickly, once the principle is conceded? The cries are already out there. Cambridge was one of the elite to oppose top-up fees, but then last week, its outgoing vice-chancellor called on the Government to double them to £6,000. The views of Sir Richard Sykes of Imperial college, the man who gutted the Wellcome drugs company, are well known. He has said:
	"To come here is not a right, it's a privilege."
	He has called for annual fees of more than £10,000, so he is right: it would be a privilege, and just for the privileged.
	To try and recover some of the ground, the Government have also switched their ground. They say that students should be prepared to pay more to go to elite universities, because they will earn more afterwards. That sounds fair and logical, but it is dangerously logical. If we had a system that deterred students from poorer backgrounds because of price and debt, we would have a different bunch of kids going to university, earning more and paying it back afterwards.
	When my hon. Friend the Member for Barking still held the higher education brief, she said, only last month:
	"If potential students thought and acted rationally, then they would be willing to invest more in universities that offered them a better return on their investment."
	That is more dangerous logic. Students should act rationally? When I was at school, I was fighting pressure to go out and get a job, working nights and weekends to prove a point and stay on at school so I could go to university. That was not thinking rationally. When my head teacher mumbled something about me being Oxbridge material, I did not understand a word. I had never heard of the place. So, rationally, I looked at a map, but I could not find it there either.

Eric Joyce: With respect, my hon. Friend did make a rational choice. He went to Oxford and ended up with a fairly successful career.

Paul Farrelly: All I can say is that it happened somehow.
	In summary, I cannot support an amendment that sidesteps the heart of the controversy and seeks to endorse steps towards widening participation at the same time as introducing a system that will narrow it. However, until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responds to the consultation on the White Paper and we see whether he is prepared to make concessions to our concerns, I intend to abstain. I congratulate him on the way he has carried on the debate. He has been relentless in doing the rounds, and I dare say that he has had more wine and no cheese evenings this year than he can remember. But the proof will be in the listening. There are alternatives. We should debate them, and be given the information to do so. I hope that the Government will listen and change their policy on top-up fees.

John Pugh: We began this debate with a harrowing tale of poverty in Burnley, and I cannot rival that story from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). However, I have put four children through university recently, so I speak with some experience.
	I hope to appeal to the good sense of Labour Members. That may be regarded as a futile endeavour, either because I lack good arguments or—less plausibly—because they lack good sense. Opposition days tend to follow a ritual in which Opposition parties seek to cause embarrassment by moving a motion more attractive than Government policy. Generally, party loyalists, assisted by avuncular and friendly advice from the Whips, tend to grit their teeth, ignore what is said and vote as they are told. However, this is not quite one of those occasions. Today, we are assessing and testing how stubborn the Government will be. A small revolt this evening and the Government will barely pause for breath and press on. A larger than usual revolt and the Government will begin to hesitate, prevaricate and develop a collective amnesia about the policy and its date of implementation. A large revolt on top-up fees will be embarrassing, with bad headlines tomorrow. However, headlines are temporary, and effects of bad policy are more permanent.

Tony McWalter: The hon. Gentleman mentions bad policies. Surely it would be a bad policy to leave universities radically underfunded?

John Pugh: The Liberal Democrats are in no way proposing to do that. My concern tonight is top-up fees. Labour Members will have to stand alone at the hustings in two years, justifying top-up fees and tuition fees. That is a headache that not even a party loyalist wishes to face. Temporary embarrassment today is a reasonable trade off against serious embarrassment at a later date.
	Top-up fees are no part of the ideology of the Labour party generally or of new Labour. They are not an irreversible plank of Government policy. The Chancellor will not commit suicide if we reverse that policy. I am sure that he could fill the hole that the removal of top-up fees would leave, even if he does not follow the Liberal Democrats' suggestions. It could be said that I am appealing to the low motive of electoral survival, but I ask Labour Members what the high motive is. What is the argument for top-up fees based on political idealism or on socialism?
	We all agree that the universities need to be well funded to compete internationally, but the Government are claiming that the only solution is that some should be allowed to charge. That is to assume that all universities will not end up charging, which is not something that Labour Members are at all comfortable with. What will happen is that the most prestigious educational institutions will charge more and it will cost more to study at them.
	In sum, the most prestigious education will be less affordable. Prestigious education should be affordable, but Labour is arguing that it should be less so. Whether tacit or explicit, that is the philosophy behind top-up fees. It is not socialism or equal opportunity; it is disguised in part by talk about access regulators and support for poorer students, but the reality is that prestigious courses will become less affordable.

Anne Campbell: I am a long-standing opponent of top-up fees, but I must say that I would find it much easier to support the Liberal Democrat motion if I knew what their total policy was. To pick out one little bit of policy and to concentrate on it is to try to confuse both the House and the electorate. It is not telling us how the Liberal Democrats would get extra money into higher education.

John Pugh: The hon. Lady must make up her mind whether she accepts the principle behind top-up fees and whether she expects those fees and tuition fees to damage her electoral success.
	Essentially, the premise on which top-up fees are based—the only ideology or principle on which they are based—is that prestigious education makes people wealthy: go to the right universities and end up richer. That is the credo of philistines who take the view that if prestigious education does not make a person wealthy, it is not in fact prestigious education. It is a matter of empirical fact, and I shall not dispute it, that graduates from Russell universities have more overall earning power. They will end up earning more than average, but they will also end up paying more tax than average.
	The principle still dogging top-up fees is that they make prestigious education less affordable while it is not necessarily more lucrative. Russell group undergraduates will do better financially than most, but the reason for that is not necessarily the fact of their going there. Part of the reason will be that, having gone there, they are part of a family that is upwardly mobile and that helps and supports them in every conceivable way. Perversely, the effect of top-up fees will be to make those universities more elitist and less effective. At the end of the day, Labour party members must decide whether they accept the principle that the best education in this country should become progressively less affordable.

David Rendel: We have had an interesting debate, demonstrating a lot of angst in the Labour party on top-up fees, which is no surprise. We have long known that a number of Labour Members agree with the sort of policies that the Liberal Democrats have proposed. If one or two, such as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), do not know the rest of our policy, I can only say that many Members on both sides have explained it at great length. They have obviously gone to great lengths to find out what Liberal Democrat policy is, even to the extent of reading LibDem News. I am delighted to learn that the only party political paper still in existence is so well read by hon. Members.
	The first point I want to pick up from the debate is whether the level of fees charged has any effect on the amount of money going into our universities. There has been widespread agreement that our universities are seriously underfunded. We need sources of funds for university research and teaching because the level of funding has sunk greatly, particularly since the big expansion of the universities began. Whatever the Minister may have said—he is new, and we cannot expect him to have read all the facts yet—tuition fees did not lead to any increase in funding for universities. In fact, funding per student fell and continued to fall for some years after tuition fees were introduced.
	Four or five years later, the Labour Government, to their great credit, began to put a little more money into higher education. I am all for that. The Liberal Democrats have continued to say that we support the fact that the Labour Government are putting more money into higher education. The point is, however, that there is no correlation between the introduction of tuition fees and more money going into higher education. The two things are quite separate, as is always bound to be the case. Any Government will look at the national cake, try to decide how to divide it between personal expenditure and spending on public services, and then decide how the money for public services can be raised. Some will come from voluntary sources, such as people paying privately for health or education or businesses giving money for research in universities, and some will come from charges, such as charges for education or prescriptions. More will come, at the margin, from taxation. It is inevitable that any Government will decide first how the national cake should be shared, then how the money should be raised. The marginal part of Government revenue will always be taxation.
	If the Government know their business at all, the level of fees cannot, therefore, have any real effect on spending in higher education and universities. Indeed, it would be a dereliction of the Government's duty if it were otherwise. The whole purpose of the Government must be to seek the best way to spend the national wealth on behalf of all the people. If that is their prime purpose, they must make that decision before they know how much will be levied in charges, and not afterwards. I fear that the university vice-chancellors who favour top-up fees are sadly deluded in what they think will be the result. The fact that tuition fees made absolutely no difference to the amount of money going into universities demonstrates my point.
	I shall talk briefly about Conservative policy, but we shall have another opportunity on Wednesday to tear them to pieces. I look forward to that, and I feel sorry for the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) who will presumably have to defend his policies then. For today, I am glad that the Conservatives have come round to our point of view in opposing both tuition fees and top-up fees and in saying that they will never implement top-up fees, if ever they get the chance. I shall be delighted to have their support in the Lobby.
	The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) felt that top-up fees would help the less prestigious universities. If there is to be a market, however, and the Minister was insistent that the whole business of differential fees would cause a market between the universities, it must be the case that prestigious universities will gain the most in top-up fees because they will be able to raise their fees the highest and charge the greatest fees. Inevitably, the market will mean that the less prestigious universities do least well out of fees. The hon. Gentleman's argument that top-up fees are necessary to help the less prestigious universities is nonsense. I am afraid that that, to my mind, destroyed the whole basis of his speech. I fear that I did not pay much attention to the rest of it, for which I apologise to him.
	Differential fees have also been raised, and there seem to be three main disadvantages to those. First, courses such as science and medicine could cost more, in which case we would reduce the student numbers for those courses that are exactly those in which the country needs to encourage more students to participate. What a bizarre use that would be of market forces. Alternatively, courses that cost more, such as science and medicine, will be charged at lower fees, but that, too, would be a bizarre form of market.
	Secondly, the posher and more prestigious universities would be able to charge more. That would only widen the divide that is already there between the different resources going to universities. It would drive some universities into the ghetto, and it might drive others into liquidation, a threat that already hangs over some. If the threat worsens, I fail to see how the Government's policy of trying to widen the number of people going into higher education will be advanced.
	Thirdly, if there are differential fees, poorer students will inevitably tend to go to the less well-equipped and prestigious universities. What will that do in terms of providing better opportunities for the young people in our country who come from less well-off families? The Minister suggested that he was slightly doubtful about whether the less well off would tend to choose the cheaper universities. I can only point him to MORI's "Student Living" report, which came out earlier this year, and which makes precisely that point. When MORI polled students, a great many said that they would choose a university according to cost if they did not have the money to pay for the most prestigious.

David Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Rendel: I am sorry, but we are behind time.
	The fourth point is that higher education produces benefits, as most of us accept, for industry, society as a whole and the individual graduate.
	We all accept, therefore, that all three should contribute to the costs of higher education. I stress that my party accepts that, because some people deny that we do.
	Graduates do not all benefit to the same extent, however. Some receive much more as a result of going to university, yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) pointed out, some people would earn more money over their lifetime if they had never gone to university, but had gone straight out to work. Even graduates in the same subject do not necessarily earn the same amount during their lifetime. Some will go into better paid jobs as a result of getting a degree, but some will be less well paid.
	Using income tax to fund our higher education system has the added advantage that those who gain most financially from their degrees pay more, while those who gain least pay less. That is a fairer way. If the burden of repayment falls equally on all those who obtain degrees, whatever their degree may be, we shall inevitably end up with a less fair system than if we funded it through income tax, which is contingent on the income earned throughout a graduate's life. Under an income tax-funded system, the burden is spread more widely, thinly and evenly.
	Tuition fees and top-up fees will not in themselves put even one extra penny into higher education. Higher education should be funded by the three sources that benefit from it. They should contribute in proportion to the benefit that they gain.
	This evening we have an opportunity for the Labour party to rid itself of the millstone around its neck, an opportunity to support widening participation and the needs of our economy and an opportunity to create a fairer society, which makes the best use of the potential of all its young people.

Alan Johnson: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to this interesting debate. I am grateful for all the kind words welcoming me to the Dispatch Box. I do not know whether the debate will be memorable for anybody else, but it will certainly be memorable for me as it has been my first canter around this particular course. It has shown the strong feeling of Members on both sides of the House about an important and crucial issue, whose central features cannot be ducked. They need to be debated.
	I shall try to respond as far as I can to the various points that were made. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) seemed to be alleging that the White Paper offers no help to full-time students working part-time. Perhaps my understanding was not accurate, but he seemed to be making that accusation. In fact, our White Paper proposals certainly will provide assistance, with the reintroduction of the higher education grant and no upfront fees.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the additional fee income really would be additional. That is also an important point for Labour Members. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has made it clear that the income will not be taken into account in the Higher Education Funding Council formulae and mechanisms; it will be additional money going into universities. I am happy to repeat that.

Barry Sheerman: Today, the Select Committee on Education and Skills has been finishing its inquiry into higher education, which is why its members were unable to attend the debate. The Minister will recall that when we recommended that the postcode premium should be increased, we thought that that would be extra new money. It has not been new money; it has been top-sliced from the rest of the budget.

Alan Johnson: Extra money will be going in during the settlement, however. We are very much looking forward to my hon. Friend's report.
	The debate got bogged down for a while on all things Scottish. As great believers in devolution, we accept that different decisions will be made in Scotland and in Wales. A relevant point was made, however, about the comparison of the Scottish grant with the new grant that we plan to introduce, which will be a non-repayable grant of £10,000—[Hon. Members: "£1,000!"]—of £1,000. I am sorry. That was nearly a policy change—I could hear someone falling to the floor behind me.
	The English system will be better for poorer students than the Scottish system. Under the Scottish system, £2,100 is removed from the student loan, while in our system, the poorest students do not have to pay upfront tuition fees; they receive a non-repayable £1,000 maintenance grant and up to £1,100 is removed from the variable fees. They will not have to start repaying any of that until they earn £15,000. The £2,100 endowment payment is not income-related, so I think that we have a good case, which we shall make over and over again, that we have a better and more generous system for the poor.
	I greatly respect the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), but the policy of Her Majesty's official Opposition is opportunism over integrity. I cannot understand how the party that set up Dearing and supported tuition fees in the House should not only be against the extra funding, which is bad enough, but should also want to return to a 19th-century policy of elitism as we enter the 21st century. That is thoroughly depressing.
	The hon. Member for Daventry asked about the repayment threshold, which is another important point. He said that the repayment threshold of £15,000 is still lower than it was under the Tories' loan scheme. However, under the Tories' scheme, when a person's income reached £15,000 they paid back the money with interest big-time. It is not a minor point of detail about our threshold when we say that neither students nor parents will pay the fees, but graduates will. When graduates earn more than £15,000, the rate will be 9 per cent. of the difference between £15,000 and their earnings. The rate of interest will merely keep pace with inflation. That is entirely different from the Conservative scheme.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) made an extremely thoughtful contribution from his experience not only as a lecturer, but as a distinguished member of the Select Committee. He rightly pointed out the anomalies in the Liberal Democrat position. He made the point about part-time students being helped and he said that variable fees must be additional. He said that the White Paper is not perfect and that it needs to be refined and revised, but that it is the only show in town.
	I wish to dwell on the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), as it goes to the centre of the whole argument. He said that the proposals would discourage youngsters from poor backgrounds and referred to research from America, where about 45 per cent. of youngsters from the poorest backgrounds go to university. I want to make two important points to my hon. Friend. First, there is an incredible statistic that shows that there is an 8 per cent. gap in social classes, but only a 1 per cent. gap in admissions in applications to the Russell group of universities. We need to address some of the points that my hon. Friend makes about being put off going to Oxford, and we have a whole host of recommendations in our White Paper to tackle those issues. Secondly, my hon. Friend mentions America, but we have information from Australia, which has a fee deferral system very similar to what we are producing, showing that that does not deter pupils from poor backgrounds from going to university.
	In conclusion, the whole thrust of our White Paper is that, if we do not take action now, our very well respected and thriving university and higher education sector will decline. The institute for employment research shows that 1.7 million jobs will be created in this country between 1999 and 2010. Nine out of 10 of those jobs will require higher education and a graduate education. I know from my previous job at the Department of Trade and Industry that, if we do not take this opportunity to improve and enhance our higher education system and to attract more youngsters, we will damage the future prosperity of this country.
	I believe that the three Dearing principles were absolutely right. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) tried very hard to convince us that a contribution from society through taxation is Liberal Democrat policy, because of the argument that the postman and the labourer—non-graduates—ought to make more of a contribution through the tax system, and that the Liberal Democrats support the Dearing principles. However, the tax system will not ensure that the universities can take advantage of that extra funding. If taxes were increased, the money should go to other parts of the education sector.
	I am afraid that Liberal Democrat Members cannot suggest that their policy in any way reflects the Dearing report, which very clearly refers to a contribution from society through taxation and a contribution from employers. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South made an important point about endowment policies representing a long-term solution. That is an important feature of the White Paper, but employers have to make their contribution. As Dearing said, the other important element is that graduates, who benefit from university degrees, should repay using a fair system, which we have proposed. I ask hon. Members to support the Government in the Lobby tonight.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 267.

Question accordingly negatived.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It may have come to your attention that, as we deliberate, the Home Secretary is touring the media studios giving his version of the debacle in Windsor castle on Saturday. Is not the Home Secretary intending to come to the House tomorrow to make a statement? Is that not, yet again, a defiance of Mr. Speaker's ruling that Ministers should not tour the media studios before they come to the House of Commons to give an account of themselves? Can you demand that the Home Secretary comes to the House at 10 o'clock tonight to answer questions from Members of Parliament, rather than from television and radio interviewers?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand what the right hon. Member has said, and I know that there is a great deal of interest in that report in the House and outside. At this moment I am not aware that the Home Secretary is coming to make a statement. I will advise the House immediately if I am informed of the same.

Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not perfectly clear that the real reason for the Home Secretary's action is to try to distract attention from what has been going on in the House, where there has been a major rebuff of Government policy?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must now proceed with the business to protect the Opposition day debate.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
	The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 175.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	madam deputy speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House congratulates the Government on its plan to abolish up-front tuition fees and to raise the threshold for repayment of loans from £10,000 to £15,000; endorses the further steps that the Government is taking to widen participation amongst students from deprived backgrounds—the establishment of the Office for Fair Access, the introduction from 2004–05 of a £1,000 grant for students from the poorest backgrounds and better support for part-time students; welcomes the sustained investment in higher education through annual increases of 6 per cent. in real terms over the next three years; and recognises the need to maintain UK universities at the forefront of world research and to equip the UK workforce with the high level skills needed to compete in the global marketplace.'.

Transport

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We now come to the next motion, which is on transport. I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Don Foster: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that for the duration of the crisis in transport the country requires a full-time Secretary of State for Transport.
	If there were no crisis in transport, I would be the first to argue the need for the role of the Secretary of State for Transport to be merged with another task: heading the Government's environmental policies. Transport and the environment should be inextricably linked, but linking transport with Scotland makes no sense. Given the current crisis in transport, however, we believe that we need a Secretary of State who is single-minded in seeking solutions to that crisis.
	The Government's amendment simply tries to imply that there is no crisis—how wrong they are. It is no wonder that the latest opinion poll shows that 81 per cent. of the British public believe that the Government have failed to deliver on transport.
	I would be the first to admit that there have been several improvements under this Government: the change of Railtrack to Network Rail, a not-for-profit public interest company; the reduction of the number of train operating franchises; and the introduction of congestion charging in London. Interestingly, the first two measures were Liberal Democrat policies and the third was a proposal from Ken Livingstone that the Government were prepared to support in any way only after it had been demonstrated to work. Despite those improvements, however, there is a real crisis in transport.
	I looked today at the transport section of the BBC website. At 5.15 pm, it showed that there were 44 cancellations, delays and disruptions to services run by the 18 major train operating companies, 20 of which were to South West Trains services alone. Half the listed train operating companies reported incidents on their lines. Surely it is a bizarre irony that I criticised the Secretary of State in the Chamber last Thursday for his proposals to increase rail fares above the rate of inflation on the grounds that rail passengers were not getting the quality service that they deserved yet, that very afternoon, all trains out of Paddington had to be cancelled due to line-side disruption. When I rang national rail inquiries at 4 pm, I was given the times of trains that would supposedly run although they had been cancelled two hours earlier.

John Redwood: How can the hon. Gentleman say that Network Rail—or "Notwork Rail", as it should be known—is an improvement on what went before given that it costs the taxpayer much more money and is the cause of many of the increased delays about which he talks?

Don Foster: The right hon. Gentleman fails to take account of the fact that at the time of transfer the new body put forward its detailed business plan contained costings of intended expenditure to improve our railway lines. It is keeping more or less to that budget, so it is not overspending. It is certainly true that it proposes to spend more on our railways than the incompetent Railtrack did before. I shall argue later that the right hon. Gentleman would have made a fair point if he had said that Network Rail must do more to reduce its costs to ensure that we get better value for money from the increased expenditure. I shall return to that point in a moment.

Lawrie Quinn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and recall spending many happy hours considering the Bill that became the Transport Act 2000. Is it not the case that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) forgets that Railtrack was sold on a false prospectus and that we did not recognise the 18 years or more—some would argue 38 years—of underinvestment in such a key part of our transport infrastructure?

Don Foster: I would be the first to acknowledge that the two key reasons why we have the current problem are underinvestment for many decades, which is recognised by the Government's investment, and the botched privatisation of our railways under the previous Conservative Administration. The key issue relating to the need to change Railtrack into a not-for-profit public interest company was the fact that there was a huge conflict of interest under Railtrack between shareholder profits and passenger safety, which explains why I welcomed the move.

Lawrie Quinn: Given that the hon. Gentleman argues that the alleged crisis—as he puts it—goes back many decades, will he pinpoint when it started? My old dad, who is sadly no longer a train driver, would have pointed back to the time immediately after the second world war.

Don Foster: If I were to be absolutely honest, I would admit that I have studied the history books and can demonstrate that a previous Liberal Government at the turn of the previous century failed to invest properly in our railways. I am more than happy to acknowledge that the underinvestment is the fault of all political parties. However, the problem is that we have a crisis, whatever the cause, that this Government have failed to tackle. Having a Secretary of State who is distracted by other duties will not help to bring that crisis to an end.

Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Don Foster: In a moment.
	I mentioned the crisis at Paddington last Thursday and want to pay tribute to the managing director of First Great Western, Chris Kinchin-Smith, and his staff for the excellent way in which they helped to defuse the situation caused by the incompetence of the national rail inquiries service. I also want to thank Denni Bernard, the manager of the train that I eventually caught from Reading. With her understanding and her humorous comments over the loudspeaker system she managed to defuse much of the tension.
	There is a significant crisis, notwithstanding some of the improvements I mentioned. It would appear that the Secretary of State has tried to keep his head below the parapet and keep transport out of the news, but he has failed to do so. As he admitted in the House only a few weeks ago,
	"if there were a policy of attempting to bury bad news on the railways, it has been singularly unsuccessful."—[Official Report, 13 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 154.]
	It certainly has. The Secretary of State cannot afford to hide below the parapet. Were he to glimpse over the top of it he would see a transport system that is creaking at the seams. Congestion on our roads continues its remorseless rise. The Government have admitted that their 10-year transport plan targets for reducing congestion will not be met despite the fact that congestion is costing British businesses £20 billion a year and that there is a huge increase in the number of deaths brought forward because of the pollution from that congestion. So much for the Deputy Prime Minister's promise to cut the number of journeys travelled by car.
	On the buses outside London, passenger numbers have fallen by 10 per cent. since the Labour Government came to power. In the same time, rail passengers have had to suffer train delays that have doubled and cancellations that are up by 50 per cent. No doubt the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) will give us the correct figures on that.

Geraint Davies: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can correct me, but I do not recall him calling for an individual Secretary of State for Transport when we had a Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. At a time when transport has been devolved in London and Scotland and we are moving towards regional responsibilities, his position seems strange. Is it his policy, as he said, that we should have a new Secretary of State with responsibility for transport and the environment, or is he just confused?

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. At the time of the last general election, we made it clear that we would split up the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions into two Departments, one of which would predominantly have responsibility for transport and the environment. I still believe that that is the correct thing to do. Nevertheless, as I made clear in my introductory remarks, in light of the current devastating crisis, that is not the appropriate way forward in the short term. We need a Secretary of State who concentrates on that transport crisis and on putting matters right.
	The transport crisis is real. As I said, train delays have increased by 100 per cent., cancellations are up by 50 per cent. and bus ridership outside London has decreased. Rail freight was increasing for a number of years, but last year it experienced the first decline since 1994. The guts of the multi-modal studies have been ripped out as the Government accepted most of the road building programme but refused to acknowledge the many sensible rail improvement measures contained within them and would not do anything about them.
	As for aviation, the Government are basing their consultation on its future by using a deeply flawed document. They appear to have returned to the old failed "predict and provide" approach, using predictions that are extremely bizarre. For example, their predictions assume that after 2030 we will need to build a new Heathrow every three years, which is clearly nonsensical.
	Even at that quick glance, the Secretary of State can see that there is a real crisis. If he looks in more detail, he will see that it is even worse than that.

Lembit �pik: Does my hon. Friend agree that the prospect for proper development of aviation in the UK is through the regional air network? That does not necessarily require new runways. Instead, runways can be extended, such as the runway at Welshpool airport in my constituency.

Don Foster: My hon. Friend manages to get in a sensible constituency point, but he also makes a more general point. Surely the first step in deciding the future of aviation in this country is to ensure that we make better use of existing airports and develop regional airports. In that way, economies in the regions could grow and we would not have to rely constantly on the overheated economy in the south-east. My hon. Friend is right.
	The crisis is worse, however, when it is looked at in more detail.

Rob Marris: In terms of regional airport policyMadam Deputy Speaker will be aware of thisdoes the hon. Gentleman support the expansion of Wolverhampton business airport at Halfpenny Green?

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me too far. Unlike the Home Secretary, I wish to discuss the final document that we will submit to the Government with my colleagues before we make its details public. If he can wait just 48 hours, we should have an answer then.
	If we look in more depth at the railways, we see not only problems with delays and cancellations, but that we have the most expensive railway in Europe. Fares here are four times more expensive than they are in Italy and seven times more expensive than Czech fares. As we heard only last Thursday, fares are to rise even further. As we learned over the weekend, we also have some of the slowest trains, slower even than trains in Morocco, China and even Iran.

Jenny Tonge: Does my hon. Friend agreeI am sure he willthat airports in the south-east are so overcrowded and overburdened because our railways journeys are so appalling, so expensive and so slow? That is the key to better transport in this country.

Don Foster: I agree that rail substitution for some flights is an important part of the solution, but we also need to consider how we ensure that aviation bears the full costs of the industry. At the moment, it gets huge tax subsidies, which are greatly detrimental to the environment.
	The railways are in a deep crisis. It is difficult to get information on how they are progressing. I recently wanted to know what criteria were used by the Strategic Rail Authority in deciding which train operating company should be awarded a franchise. The answer we got was remarkably unclear and not comprehensive. In a parliamentary written answer, we were simply told that the SRA uses a variety of criteria for assessing which companies are short-listed for passenger franchises. In other words, decisions are made but we are not told how. The Secretary of State has to admit that there is a real crisis in the railways and other modes of transport.
	Let us consider what the Government say in their amendment. As I suggested, they seem to imply that there is no crisis. It is that old phrase, Crisis. What crisis? I hope that the House thinks about the words in the amendment. It tells us that we should note
	the additional pressures which economic growth since 1997 is putting on the transport networks.
	That is a relatively new excuse by the Government. Yet if hon. Members look at the 10-year transport plan, they will see that economic growth is included in the plan. Since then, the Chancellor has told us that the figures for economic growth were wrong and that they have declined, so the rate of growth is less than predicted.
	That excuse is therefore not nearly as good as it used to be. The Government amendment says that we should welcome
	the Government's continuing commitment to investment of 180 billion through the Ten Year Transport Plan.
	However, if that sum was accounted for properly, we would discover that at current prices 180 billion is worth about 158 billion, much of which is used for public resource expenditure, so there is only 103 billion for new investment, of which nearly half48 billioncomes from the private sector[Interruption.] I will deal with what is wrong with that in second.
	Approximately 55 billion is committed to public investment. If we make a comparison between the six years of the Labour Government and the last six years of the Conservative Government, the present Government's own figures demonstrate that the Labour Government are spending less on public transport than the Conservatives did, even though they had cut expenditure on public transport significantly.
	The Government amendment says that we should welcome the Government's
	policies of balanced improvements to all modes of transport consistent with wider environmental objectives.
	Only recently, the Select Committee on Transport produced a report on multi-modal studies that says that there are many areas where environmental and sustainability criteria are lacking. It says:
	There are still no official estimates for the cost of congestion nor its impact on economic growth; current policies will fail to provide sufficient cuts in climate change emissions . . . The Department has already taken decisions on the outcome of the first eight multi-modal studies yet the impact of climate change has not been mentioned.
	The Government's own figures on environmental pollution make the position very clear. Greenhouse gas emissions from transport are set to continue to rise 16 per cent. on 2000 levels by 2010 and 30 per cent. by 2020. Again, that is hardly something that we should welcome.
	The Government amendment says that we should recognise the Government's
	achievements in . . . improved rail rolling stock
	The reality, as we warned, is that because of the failure to address the problem of energy supply south of the Thames, 1,000 new carriages are set to be mothballed in a military base. The slam-door replacement programme will simply not be delivered on time.
	The Government amendment says that we should welcome
	falling numbers of road accidents.
	Only recently, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) said that
	the number of casualties on rural roads is disproportionately high[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 March 2003; c. 602.]
	The Government, however, have failed to meet their commitment to reduce drink-drive limits.
	The Government amendment also urges us to recognise the Government's achievements in increased bus patronage, but outside London, that patronage has fallen by 10 per cent. since they came to power. There is therefore very little in the amendment worth recognising. It is riddled with inaccuracies and exaggerations and is sadly typical of the spin to which we have grown accustomed.
	As the Secretary of State knows, the Liberal Democrats, unlike the Conservatives, have a detailed transport policy. He has a copy, so he knows that we have policies on each of the areas that I have just mentioned.

Andrew Murrison: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is referring to his local or national transport policy, and would he comment on recent remarks by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), who said
	We can all modify our opinions according to local circumstances?[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 13 May 2003; c. 57.]
	Would he confirm that such a position has no place in the creation of transport policy by his party or any other responsible party?

Don Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the words of wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton). Without seeing that remark in contextI understand that it did not even relate to transportit is beyond my pay grade to comment on it.
	A number of things could be done to resolve the current crisis, and the Secretary of State needs to give all his energies to that. It is crucial that we do what he has been saying we should do for a long time, although we have not yet seen any real action. We should start to address the problem of costs, particularly on our railways. There is no doubt whatsoever that those costs are over the top. There are a variety of reasons for that, including levels of regulation, safety issues and far too many contractors and sub-contractors doing the work and seeking a profit. However, there is an urgent need to take action to reduce costs. I welcome the fact that Network Rail has restated its commitment to that goal today, and said that it seeks to reduce the cost of renewal and repair by 20 per cent. over the next three years. However, if that can be done over a mere three years, it demonstrates that costs have been far too high, so we have not been getting value for money. I am delighted that Network Rail is at long last following another Liberal Democrat policy in the policy document of which the Secretary of State has a copy by bringing at least some repair and renewal work in-house. I am delighted that that work is starting in the Reading area today, and I hope that there is going to be far more.
	However, there is one other area of costs that the Secretary of State has not mentioned, but which requires urgent action. Before we start to put up rail fares, surely we ought to ensure that we collect all the rail fares that are due. Recent research demonstrates that 10 to 15 per cent. of rail fares are not collected. There is also a conflict in bus travel where, as I said, ridership has gone down. On the one hand, the Transport Act 2000, to which the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) referred, allows for the establishment of quality contracts between a group of bus companies and their local authority. On the other, however, competition legislation prevents that. The time surely has come to resolve that conflict. I would go even furtherthe time has come for re-regulation of our buses.
	There should also be much more innovation in the way in which we carry out funding of transport. For example, we should allow local authorities to raise bonds for local public transport improvements against the likely income streams from congestion charging. We could go even further and develop the model of land value taxation that has been proposed for the long-awaited Crossrail. The move to regionalisation has been mentioned, and the time has come to look at the way in which we could strengthen transport in the regions, building on the excellent work of regional transport authorities. Regional authorities should operate along the lines of the German Verbund scheme and should have the opportunity to commission public transport, whether bus, train or light transit, as the Strategic Rail Authority currently does for trains.
	We need to do much more to promote what the trade calls soft measures. We should provide more support for car clubs, green travel plans prepared by local businesses, and small measures on our railways, such as loop lines and passing lines, so that high-speed trains are not held up by slower freight trains and local trains. Much more action should be taken to resolve the scourge of congestion in the morning created by the school run.

Richard Younger-Ross: My hon. Friend mentioned passing points, but he will be aware that Railtrack pulled out a lot of track for passing points, and has closed a lot of platforms. Passing points that were in existence 10 or 15 years ago are no longer there, but it would be simple to put them back in as a priority.

Don Foster: I am not sure that it would be as simple as my hon. Friend suggests, but it would make a great deal of sense to develop far more smaller-scale measures, which were recently cut by the programme of the SRA and Network Rail. In my own constituency, we have been waiting years for a simple solution to the problem of a large gap between track and train at Freshford station. That has recently been cut, despite many promises to solve the problem. We have proposed simpler and cheaper solutions, but even those have been rejected.
	There are many soft measures that could be taken. On at least two issues the House must come together, despite the criticisms that we might make. First, we should persuade the Secretary of State that his review of the 10-year transport plan must lead to a radical overhaul of it. The current plan is already off the rails because targets have been missed or dropped, priorities have been changed and the public has lost confidence. Secondly, we need to work together to help the Secretary of State make his case to the Chancellor for the 2004 spending review, so that transport get its fair share of the expenditure that will be announced at that time.
	A great deal more needs to be done to create the safe, reliable and affordable public transport system that the country deserves. Much could be done to tackle the present transport crisis, but it requires a full-time Secretary of State. That is why I commend the motion to the House.

Alistair Darling: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	recognises the importance of transport infrastructure to continued growth and prosperity; welcomes the Government's commitment to a sustained improvement in the transport system; acknowledges that it inherited a legacy of decades of under-investment which continues to have severe adverse consequences for transport performance; notes the additional pressures which economic growth since 1997 is putting on the transport networks; welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to investment of 180 billion through the Ten Year Transport Plan and to its policies of balanced improvements to all modes of transport consistent with wider environmental objectives; recognises achievements already evident in, for example, improved rail rolling stock, falling numbers of road accidents and increased bus patronage; and believes that the Government has put the appropriate ministerial arrangements in place for further improvement.
	Most of us were intrigued by the way in which the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) started his speech. He was at pains to say that the Scotland Office ought to go, but not yet. That was an example of the Liberal On the one hand . . . on the other. I wondered for a moment why he had done that, then I remembered that The Times of 2 December last year reported that one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, who is described in that paper as
	the party's highly regarded deputy economics spokesman,
	had been given the job of finding about 2 billion worth of spending cuts. I shall come back to that in a moment. It seems that the chap was to look at
	symbolic moves such as abolishing the Department of Trade and Industry, and the Scottish and the Welsh Offices.
	So, the hon. Gentleman's party policy is to get rid of the Scotland Office. We are not abolishing itthe Scotland Office is still there. The hon. Gentleman wants to abolish it completely, but not yet. How typically Liberal.

Lembit �pik: rose

Alistair Darling: I will not give way at present, as I want to respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bath.
	In that press report, the hon. Gentleman's colleague said that he had been
	given the job of finding about 2 billion worth of spending cuts.
	That is quite a lot of money, and the prospect is even more remarkable given the spending commitments that the hon. Gentleman entered into during his speech.
	I see in The Times today that the Liberals are committed to getting rid of not just three but nine Government Departments, so presumably there will be several Secretaries of State with several jobs. In addition, according to their brilliant economic spokesman, the Liberals have been given a brief to change the party's image as a spendthrift, high-tax party. It is interesting that in the same report, a party source is quoted as saying:
	To be credible it cannot be painless.
	I was reminded of a letter that came into our possession, sent by the self-styled Liberal shadow Chancellor to all members of the Liberal party. This is what he wrote on 8 January this year:
	We have already agreed at Shadow Cabinet to start from the premise that as the Government are now putting in vast real-terms expenditure increases . . . simply proposing further spending and tax rises at this stage in the Parliament is unrealistic.
	At about the same time as the Liberals' Treasury spokesman said that simply proposing further spending and tax rises at this stage was unrealistic, their transport spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath, issued a press release stating:
	The Chancellor cannot afford to wait for the next spending round in 2004 before making more money available for our railways.
	It is astonishing that a party source for the Liberals can sayI quote again:
	To be credible it cannot be painless.
	What the hon. Member for Bath said is interesting, but credible it is not.

Don Foster: I thank the Secretary of State for putting it on the record that the Liberal Democrats have made it clear that they wish to reduce bureaucracy and waste in central Government to save money, that they want to ensure that we get better value for money, and that they have fully costed programmes. If the right hon. Gentleman read out the rest of that press release, it would show that all that money would come from existing Government spending proposals.

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman will find that trying to fund everything from savings on bureaucracy simply does not work. In the course of his speech, he said that we had to control costs and he announced spending commitment after spending commitment. He was guilty of gross financial incontinence. It is unbelievable how the Liberals can pretend to be credible when their spokesmen say that they would spend more, but at the same time they are interested in controlling costs.
	I remind the Liberals that at the same time as issuing statements about being financially responsible, the Liberal shadow Chancellor said that any spending pledge made by the Liberals had to meet five tests. First, it had to represent value for money. Who would quarrel with that? Secondly, the pledge had to be funded within current budgets. Yet here the hon. Gentleman was saying that rail fares should not go upthat is a spending commitment. He then said that he wanted some railway expenditure financed by bonds. Let me tell him that bonds also have to be financed. According to the third test, the proposal had to be consistent with consumer choicevery nice. Fourthly, it had to represent a priority for scarce resources. There is no evidence that that has focused the hon. Gentleman's mind. Fifthly, the Liberals would have to decide whether any spending pledge could not be better delivered by the private sector.
	That is the party that criticised us for the public-private partnership for London Underground. It says that it is against the private finance initiative in many parts of the country, despite the fact that it is bringing in a lot of new projects for transport, health and education. The hon. Gentleman's problem is that his policy lacks credibility, it is opportunistic and it shows no evidence that the Liberals have woken up to the fact that if they offer to spend money, they first have to get the money. Throughout the time of this Government, from 1997 onwards, the Liberals opposed the very policies that made it possible for us to allocate so much money for transport spending in the 10-year period.

Rob Marris: With reference to spending commitments by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), does my right hon. Friend find it surprising that in his intervention the hon. Gentleman spoke about cutting bureaucracy, yet the only example of cutting regulation that he gave in his speech referred to safety on the railways? I find that extraordinary. Furthermore, it seems that the whole of the Liberal Democrats' transport plan is to be funded by cutting safety on the railways.

Alistair Darling: One of the great pleasures of being a Liberal spokesman, I suppose, is that it must be within the hon. Gentleman's contemplation that at no time in the foreseeable future is he ever likely to have to take responsibility for decisions. It must be a great comfort.
	I shall give another example of a curious position that the Liberals are adopting. When the hon. Member for Bath speaks about roads and the last series of multi-modal studies, he gives the distinct impression that the Liberals would not build any roads at all. I remember that just before Christmas I announced that I was not prepared to sanction a proposal to build a new off-line A556 upgraded to motorway standard in Cheshire because it would go through greenfield areas and would be environmentally damaging. I was surprised, as I am sure the House will be, that at a recent meeting of councils in the Greater Manchester area, they all agreed that there was an alternative, except for one councilLiberal-controlled Stockport, which wanted the A556 built off-line from the major roads. That showssadly, the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) is no longer with usthat what the Liberals say nationally and what they say locally is very different.

Norman Baker: May I tell the Secretary of State, if he does not know, that there is a proposal for a major environmentally destructive dual carriageway throughout my constituency? I can assure him that I shall not support that proposal, and urge him not to build it.

Alistair Darling: We shall see. I know about the proposal to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As I have said on a number of occasions, I hope to be able to come before the House fairly shortly to deal not only with that study, but with a number of others.
	When we look at transport, it is necessary to have a strong dose of realism. The hon. Member for Bath was good enough to say that what had happened was all the fault of Gladstone's Administration and that that was when the rot started. I am sure that we could look for transport deficiencies back to the time when the wheel was invented, but there is no doubt that one of the pressures on the transport system in this countrythis is not a party political point, as Labour Governments have been guilty of the same thingis that successive Governments were guilty of failing to maintain steady investment year on year, decade after decade. For example, that is why the west coast main line, which is one of the main arterial routes in our railway system, is now having to be upgraded and replaced, in many cases at huge cost. If it had been upgraded and improved regularly, year on year, the cost would easily have been accommodated as, like anyone else with a transport asset, we would have been looking after the line properly. The line was last upgraded in the 1960s and the investment is starting to go in only now.
	On Friday I was in Stockport, where the actions of the Liberal Democrat council that I mentioned came to my attention. I visited a brand new signalling centrea state-of-the-art, computer-controlled facility that will allow more capacity on the line and enable trains to be carried more safely. It can also detect problems on the line without somebody having to go out and check it; everything will be reported. That is an example of the fact that when money is spent, improvements begin to occur.
	Of course, the condition not only of our railway but of our roads was allowed to deteriorate unacceptably. At the same time, the economy has continued to grow. The hon. Member for Bath asked how more pressures on the transport system could be a problem. Some 1.5 million more people are in work, although the Liberal Democrats opposed the new deal, which is one of the ways in which we have been getting more people into work. I must be accurate: they were in favour of the new deal, but against providing the money to pay for it. At that time, they were exercising severe financial restraint, as they did not want to upset the privatised utilities, I seem to recall. None the less, 1.5 million more people are in work, and they are better off and have more reasons to travel.
	When we consider that three quarters of adults in this country drive, that rail use has increased by about a fifth since 1997as I told the House the other day, more people are being carried on the railways now than at any time since nationalisationand that half the population flew at least once last year, we can see that the pressures on the transport system are very clear. That is why we need to make up for lost time as a result of lack of investment and why we are spending about 250 million a weekan increase of some 65 per cent. in the past three yearson improving transport. The hon. Gentleman said that we were not spending enough, but we are spending 45 per cent. more in real terms than was spent in the previous decade.
	We are managing the problems that we face now to get more out of our transport infrastructure, making the long-term improvements that we need on road and rail and planning ahead for the futuresomething about which the hon. Gentleman had nothing to say, which is curious, as I thought that the Liberals had something to say in that area at least.

Tony Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend find it surprising that, during this period of tremendous crisis in transport, a new bypass has been built in my constituency that was first mooted 27 years ago, as well as two brand new roundabouts that were mooted 30 years ago and have been built for safety reasons? Does he not find that surprising?

Alistair Darling: One of the frustrations is that it takes a long time to build anything in this country. For example, I have made it clear that I think we need to replace and improve many of the motorways that were built 30 or 40 years ago. Two things hold up the development of transport infrastructureone of them is planning. To some extent, we have to live with that, as people must be entitled to have their say in any planning inquiry. However, what has happened to successive Governments is that they make an announcement, there is a planning inquiry which takes several years, and by the time the inquiry is finished, there is no money to build the project as something has changed in the meantime. My hon. Friend is right that, if we are to build a transport system that will enable our economy to continue to grow, we need to invest in both road and rail. That is why I announced last year improvements to certain main arterial routes, why we announced a programme to tackle bottlenecks at more than 100 junctions and why 64 major road schemes are currently under way.
	Similarly, I must deal with the point that the hon. Member for Bath made about congestion. What I have said about congestion is that I think that it will take longer to meet the targets than was originally thought, but let us put the issue in perspective. If we had done nothing and stuck to existing policies, congestion on our trunk roads would have increased by almost 60 per cent. As it is, it will increase by between 1 and 15 per cent. That is not the reduction for which we had hoped, but it shows that a difference can be made.
	The hon. Gentleman said that we had ripped the heart out of the multi-modal studies. I wondered whether he was complaining about my decision that it was not a good idea to build a motorway through the Black Down hills. Perhaps that is one of the proposals that he would like to reinstate. At the same time as we are announcing the road building that is necessary, we are spending 9 billion on the west coast main line. The hon. Gentleman seems to be in the business of saying that, because the two policies were not announced on the same day, we cannot be carrying them both out. The truth is that we are investing in both.
	For example, in the 1990s, British Rail reckoned that about 500 miles of track needed to be replaced or renewed each year. Just before privatisation, investment started to dry up under the Tories and that figure dropped to 300 miles. During privatisation, it was about 200 miles; indeed, I recollect that it was less in one year. This year, Network Rail is replacing more than 740 miles of track. We are spending 73 million a week and bringing in a similar sum from the private sector. By 2005, we will be spending double what we spent in 2001. That money is going into improving infrastructure such as the west coast main line, which will cut journey times and improve reliability.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned rolling stock. He is right that we should not be in a position in which rolling stock that was trundling around southern England when I was a boy and was built in the 1950s is still being used. It should have been replaced by now, but the Government will replace almost 40 per cent. of trains on British railway lines in a period of five years. That is a huge amount of investment; I think that it is the biggest investment that anyone has ever seen.
	Not only is money going into the trains, but more train services are running daily than in 1996, 25 per cent. more freight is carried by rail and the new channel tunnel rail linkthe first ever high-speed link in this country and the first major railway to be built for 100 yearswill open at the end of the year. Yes, there is an awful lot more to do, but those are all examples showing that we are making progress. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have got to deal with improving reliability and getting up-to-date information. The point that he makes about the rail inquiry service was perfectly well made and we need to do far better on it. However, I appreciate his tribute to staff at Paddington. As he knows, the delays were caused for non-railway purposes. Given the circumstances, the staff did extremely well.

Angela Browning: The Secretary of State will know that the proposal to which he referred earlier is not to build a motorway from Honiton to Ilminstera route that goes through my constituencybut to dual an existing single carriageway road. The alternative proposal that he is advancing, which would route traffic via Ilminster and the M5 at Taunton, would add more petrol to the fossil fuel bill, as people will travel that much further if it is implemented. The proposal had been the subject of a public inquiry and was ready to go out to tender when this Government came to office in 1997. It is supported unanimously by local residents and the wider economic community in the south-west. I take this opportunity to urge him seriously to reconsider that proposal and to dual that piece of road.

Alistair Darling: I am surprised that, if the proposal was so important and so urgent, the Tory Government did not build the road. The hon. Lady was a Minister in that Government for many years. For reasons that I have given, we are looking at alternatives, as we must think long and hard before building roads about whether we are absolutely sure that they are justified.
	On local transport, I should like to make one point about buses. The long-term decline in bus use has now been reversed, and not only in London. Two conditions are necessary. First, a council is needed that is prepared to put in place measures such as bus lanes and sometimes take difficult decisions to allow buses to run effectively. Secondly, there is a need for a bus company that is committed to making improvements. For example, Brighton, Oxford, Cambridge, York, Edinburgh, Leeds and Bradford have councils that are encouraging bus use and bus operators that are prepared to do more as well.
	Hon. Members often hanker after the re-regulation of buses. I understand that many parts of the system need to be improved, but it is a mistake for us to think that the time of regulated buses was a golden ageit most certainly was not.

David Hamilton: The Liberal spokesman said four times that bus numbers have not increased outside London, but there has been a 10 per cent. increase in Edinburgh. I agree with him, however, that re-regulation is required for rural areas. That is a major problem for Labour-controlled, as well as Conservative, areas.

Alistair Darling: In relation to rural buses serving small towns and villages, of which there are many in my hon. Friend's constituency, in some cases scheduled bus services can provide a good service. There are several examples of that, although probably not that many in Midlothian, where there are very small communities and putting on an extra service of two or three buses a day is not the answer. That is why I would like more dedicated demand buses that people can phone up for. Those services can make a big difference. I saw one in Cornwall at the end of last year, and it was a far more realistic option. Many hon. Friends have told me that there are too many instances of buses carting fresh air around the country, and it would be better to spend that money more effectively.

Norman Lamb: I was hoping to say something a little later about dial-a-ride services. One of the problems that is being faced across the country is that those schemes are reaching the end of their three-year period of funding from the Countryside Agency and cannot get any further funding. The Countryside Agency will fund only new, innovative schemes, not the existing schemes that are working. Can the Secretary of the State address that problem?

Alistair Darling: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. There have been many examples of pump priming, whereby money goes in to run a service for, say, three years. In most cases, the only way in which to ensure that such services last in the long term is if the local authority is willing to take them on and fund them properly. That is a far better option. We shall want to keep the situation under review.

Lembit �pik: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Alistair Darling: I intended not quite to insult the hon. Gentleman, but to take up something that he said, towards the end of my speech. He can intervene then.
	Having talked about money and investment, I want to mention an important point about the management of the system. I have said many times that we need both money and management. On the railways, although performance is improving it needs to improve much more. It is interesting that the performance of franchises in some parts of the country is up, at more than 90 per cent., yet otherssuch as the Virgin cross-country servicesare down at about 67 per cent. That is why, as I said the other dayI make no bones about itthe Strategic Rail Authority was right to take decisions that resulted in a comparatively small number of services being taken out. It is early days yet, but reliability is increasing. Even after taking those services out, there are more cross-country services every day than there were a year ago.
	I should mention road management, as I issued a written statement on that on Friday. The Highways Agency is changing its role to provide far better day-to-day management of the motorway system, with 24-hour motorway patrols. That is an example of how we can better manage matters and get more capacity from what we have.
	I want to say a few words about airports. Again, the Liberals' position is full of contradictions. As I understand it, they are against any more expansion of airports anywhere and want to put up fares. Yet when it comes to their own local airportsthe hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) has been trying to leap to his feetit is a different kettle of fish altogether. That shows that if a party aspires to governmentno wonder the hon. Gentleman's leader walked out, his head hung in shameit is necessary to have a consistency of approach nationally, as well as locally.

Lembit �pik: My moment of glory has come. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be familiar with the consistency with which Liberal Democrats have argued the case for regional transport. In a place like Wales, aviation is absolutely vital. Surely he can confirmjust as the presumed Secretary of State for Wales agrees with my comments about the need for a hub-and-spoke approach to a regional air network for Walesthat that requires serious funding as well as strategic support from the Government.

Alistair Darling: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was referring to Welshpool, and I was wondering what hub-and-spoke operation he proposes to build there. I am quite clear that air transport is an integral part of our transport system. Last year, half the population flew at least once. Low-cost airlines have grown from about 7 million to 34 million passengers. Of course, we have to plan ahead for the next 20 or 30 years. The hon. Gentleman is right at least to this extent: we have to plan in a way that is consistent with our environmental obligations. The point that I was making is that whatever policy a party has, it is a good idea if it is the same nationally as it is locally. One cannot have a national policy against air travel and a local policy of building an airport wherever possible.

Lembit �pik: rose

John Barrett: rose

Alistair Darling: I have given way to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. I am conscious of the fact that it is his party's Supply day, however, and I shall out of courtesy give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett).

John Barrett: The right hon. Gentleman is thinking about the long-term future20 or 30 years aheadand the air transportation consultation document is coming to its conclusion soon. However, rail substitution is important. Is he concerned about the proposed scaling down of the Waverley station development in his constituency?

Alistair Darling: It is common ground that Waverley station needs to be improved. There is a slight complication, because in March the Scottish Executive announced plans for a major rail interchange at Edinburgh airport. If that were to be built, it would have implications for the scale of what is necessary at Waverley. The other factor is that the costs at Waverley must be manageable. I saw a report in today's edition of The Herald that quoted absolutely astronomical coststwice the cost of building the Scottish Parliament, which is saying something. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would say, we need to have a prudent look at what is required. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that since Waverley is, at least for the time being, in my constituency, I take a keen interest in it.
	On rail substitution, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I mentioned the west coast main line. When that is completed, it will be possible to travel by train from Manchester to London in about two hours. That is a much more attractive deal than going out to Manchester airport, flying down to Heathrow, then coming into London. The Glasgow journey will be about four and a quarter hours. The Edinburgh journey, once two or three big improvements have been done, will be very competitive, in time terms, with what is currently on offer. Both Virgin and GNER are offering attractive deals: we want to encourage that.
	Even having done all that, there comes a point where it is still necessary to plan for the future. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) is sadly no longer with us, having asked the question that was required of her, which was about substitution. She will know that many of her constituents travel a wee bit further afield than Manchester and Edinburgh. When the hon. Member for Bath agreed with her proposition that we should have rail alternatives, I was intrigued as to which Liberal trains would run to New York or Singapore. Perhaps we would have the 8.22 to Auckland. The hon. Gentleman is certainly an ambitious politician: his transport policy knows no bounds.
	Investment in transport has doubled since the last Tory Government, even after inflation, and railway investment is trebling. We are managing the railway network far more effectively than we have done in the past, although we clearly have a lot more to do. We are building additional capacity where it is needed, and the 180 billion over a 10-year period will make a significant difference. We are also planning for what is needed in the decades to come, although that is probably a matter for another debate. The Liberal motion has no merit whatsoever. It is opportunistic and full of political humbug, and it deserves to be thrown out.

Tim Collins: Let me begin by complimenting the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on the clarity, simplicity, brevity and common sense of his motion. I fear that I cannot attach quite such complimentary terms to every aspect of his speech, but I shall certainly invite my colleagues to support his motion in the Division Lobby later tonight. His observation that the creation of Network Rail was Liberal Democrat policy was interestingas was his criticism of the Government for not having created it earliergiven that Network Rail is currently 12 billion over budget for the period up to 2006. Presumably he thinks that we should have created it earlier and gone even more over budget. We shall see. I was able to agree with some of the things that he said, and I shall return to them later.
	First, I want to consider the speech that the Secretary of State has just made. He said three things that exhibited robust common sense, if I may say so. First, I totally agree that it is wrong to pretend that there was a golden age for buses prior to deregulation. I also agree that it makes no sense for any of us to campaign, either locally or nationally, for buses to go on carting fresh air around the country, as he put it. He was also right to pay tribute to the success of the dial-a-ride schemes, and to say that they must play an important part in future transport strategy.
	The second aspect of his speech that I thought entirely fair and which showed robust common sense was his reference to the fact that the difficulties that the nation's transport is facing clearly did not begin when he became Transport Secretary last year, or when this Government took office in 1997. We are dealing with problems that were built up over many decades and which will no doubt take a considerable number of years to solve. I am not sure that he is right to say that the Liberals were blaming these problems on Gladstone. If my history is right, and they were saying that the problems started at the turn of the last century, they were probably blaming Messrs Campbell-Bannerman and Asquith. Either way, we are talking about fairly long-term damage.
	The third thing that the Secretary of State said with which I am happy to agree was that we need to consider, on a non-partisan basis, why it takes so long for any major transport project to be brought to fruition in this country. It is notable that things take a great deal longer here than in many other European countries. The Secretary of State correctly identified a number of the factors that lie behind that, but it is none the less a serious problem for the long-term business competitiveness of our nation, and we need to think seriously about how to address it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) pointed out earlier that there was a contrast between some public sector projects and private sector projects. He said that supermarkets were often put up in six months or so but, of course, transport projects are often rather larger than that. None the less, there are perhaps lessons to be learned from how both overseas companies and British companies are able to proceed more swiftly elsewhere than is sometimes the case in the UK.

Lawrie Quinn: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's very valid international comparisons. In the context of the German transport infrastructureparticularly the German railway industrydoes he find it interesting that the chairman and the president of Deutsche Bahn recently came to this country to see how we were proceeding with partnerships in relation to many of the proposals mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State?

Tim Collins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are many lessons to be learned from more than one direction in Europe. He is quite right to say that those aspects of the structure of the railways that were set up in the mid-1990s that do not always attract pleasurable comment from the Labour Benches are themselves sometimes subject to the interest of our European partners, many of whom are proceeding down the same routes, partly of their own volition and partly because of European directives. The hon. Gentleman is quite right: we can learn lessons from our European partners, and they can learn lessons from us. Such exchanges are fruitful and I am sure that, because of the hon. Gentleman's extremely long-standing and deep knowledge of railways, he is likely to continue to contribute to them. I very much welcome that.

Lembit �pik: I promise not to interfere any further in the debate, but would the hon. Gentleman accept that we do not get many visitors coming to see some of the other forms of transport funding in this country? For example, dial-a-ride might be a great scheme, and we all agree with it, but is he aware that the Newtown dial-a-ride scheme in mid-Wales has had to resort to getting 1,000 people to dress up as Santa Claus and run round the town, simply to maintain its funding stream? That is because, once the pump-priming has gone, the dial-a-ride schemes are often simply left to decline.

Tim Collins: I have to confess that, when the hon. Gentleman rose to his feet, I thought that he was going to say that the problem was that not enough people were coming to Welshpool airport. None the less, I take his general point and I am sure that there are photographs of him in appropriate garb as one of the 1,000 Santa Clauses.

Lembit �pik: indicated assent.

Tim Collins: The hon. Gentleman indicates that that is the case.
	The Secretary of State used a couple of intriguing phrases. He referred, as he has on many occasions and as Labour Members frequently do, to the welcome newsit is undoubtedly welcomethat there are 1.5 million more jobs in the UK economy than there were in 1997. That fact, which is frequently advanced as almost the entire explanation for why there are transport difficulties, is worth putting into context. The number of jobs has increased by 5 per cent. in the past six years. It can hardly be advanced as the reason for an increase of between 50 to 250 per cent. in congestion on our motorways. Five per cent. does not translate into 250 per cent. Other things are going on, or rather not going on, at the same time.
	The Secretary of State used another intriguing phrase when he saidI think that I am quoting him correctlythat the Government were delivering a huge increase in the amount of rolling stock. It is true that the Government, through the taxpayer, are making a significant financial contribution to much of that new rolling stock. However, it is also true that it is the privatised train operating companies that are purchasing the rolling stock.
	It is no coincidencesome Labour Members may remember that Marxist old phrase, so I will deploy it for themthat, in the Secretary of State's own phrase, more passengers are travelling on our trains now than at any time since nationalisation: more are travelling than in any nationalised year. A privatised train operating company system has returned passenger usage to levels not seen since before we had a nationalised British Rail. It is no coincidence either that we have seen the largest increase in orders for new rolling stock for at least half a century. That is because of the very arrangements that the Labour party is so accustomed to criticising.
	It is important when assessing the wording of the motion to deal with the issue of whether there is any confusion in the wider world both about transport policy and about the role of the Secretary of State for Transport. In that context, I was intrigued, as I am sure you were, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by the comments at the end of last week of Mr. David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, who said:
	Business is extremely puzzled by the Government's vision for the railways. What is the system to be used for?
	He went on:
	There seems to be no coherence to proposals that come from the Government and we call on the Secretary of State to spell out to business the Government's transport strategy.
	That intriguing comment from a senior figure in British business shows that there is serious confusion about the Government's transport strategy. I will return to that, but first let us deal with the heart of the motion: whether there is any confusion over the role of the Secretary of State himself.
	First, I went to the various Government websites. The right hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that, on the No. 10 website, his biography appears and he is correctly identified as Secretary of State for Transport and Secretary of State for Scotland, so that is terrific. The problem is that, on the Department for Transport website, exactly the same biography appears, word for word, but there is no mention of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is also Secretary of State for Scotland.
	An article that was written for the Sunday Herald by its respected Westminster editor, James Cusick, explains some of the background to how the right hon. Gentleman ended up having two Secretary of Stateships. Apparently, it all transpired because the Prime Minister rang Scotland's First Minister, Jack McConnell, at around 2.45 on the afternoon of the reshuffle to tell him that the Scotland Office was to be abolished. He was somewhat stunned when the First Minister said that there had to be a Scot inside the Cabinet with the specific role of speaking for Scotland because of specific legislative proposals.
	Only hours later did it emerge that Alistair Darling would retain the title of Scottish Secretary alongside his substantial transport secretary portfolio.
	But the Secretary of State has had people speaking on his behalf, just to explain how it was possible for him to do two roles:
	A source close to Darling insisted that his transport job would 'barely be dented' by his Scottish role. She added: 'Alistair accepted this job because he knew it could be easily accommodated. He has already contacted Helen Liddell, asked what is top of her in-tray and discovered it is a job he can manage.'
	That is tremendous. That explains everything: it is a job that he can manage and it will not take up too much of his time.
	Then, of course, the Prime Minister's official spokesman got in on the act. Some of us will remember the famous briefing in which he admitted under questioning that everything was a little hazy, but before he made that comment he went into a little more detail. The Secretary of State will doubtless be delighted to know that the official spokesman was pressed quite hard on his roles. Apparently, he said that he
	couldn't give a precise breakdown of Alistair Darling's schedule and it would be wrong to do so,
	but that it would be possible to combine both roles. Transport
	was obviously a very important issue and nobody was pretending otherwise, but it was important to remember that the Transport job has since 1997 been linked with other portfolios, so it was not unprecedented.
	Well, that is precisely what some of us are worried about. Indeed, the history of this Government since 1997 shows that in all bar the last 12 months, the transport role has been linked with other roles. That is one reason why transport is, in the immortal words of the Prime Minister, probably the worst of our public services.

Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Collins: In a moment. First under the Deputy Prime Minister and then under the Secretary of State's predecessor, who has now resigned from the Government, transport has been spatchcocked in with other responsibilities and therefore downgraded and diminished in its status, unfortunately. This is a problem that needs to be addressed, and we shall now hear from the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) why transport can afford to be downgraded in this way.

Geraint Davies: I should like the hon. Gentleman to say what his transport policies are, rather than simply recounting tittle-tattle from the Corridors. Has he any policies, or not?

Tim Collins: I get the sense that the hon. Gentleman is a little defensive about the running of his Government and the clarity of the decision making emerging from No. 10. [Interruption.] I believe that I am speaking very closely to the motion, and through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Chair will doubtless supervise these matters, as it always does.
	The key point is that many other people were very critical of the attempt to put the two jobs together. If the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) does not want to take my word for it, perhaps he will take that of his colleague, the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), who said:
	The wheels came off the wagon . . . but the wagon kept rolling along, and now we have an absolute shambles.
	Similarly, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) said that the plan had been worked out
	on the back of an envelope.
	And the former energy Minister, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), said that the way in which the new arrangements were announced was
	a bit of a shambles.
	But the good news is that none of that matters much, because Lord Falconer has addressed this issue. In his magisterial interview on Breakfast with Frost, he said:
	You can make it sound fraught with difficulties, but it was something that very many people were calling for.
	I cannot remember anybody calling for the job of Transport Secretary to be made a part-time one. However, the official line from the Secretary of State's friendsperhaps including his special adviserwas that he had checked in advance and discovered that being Scottish Secretary was not a very big job, so there was no problem there; this was not something that he needed to worry about.
	It is therefore interesting to note that when the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, he said:
	I am pretty clear that the Secretary of State for Scotland has a very important job still to play.
	He continued by saying that if things go wrong, he can be held to account in the House of Commons. That was all very admirable. He talked about the almost 100 civil servants in the Scotland Office who will be working directly for him and advising him. He was asked the following question:
	How on earth are you going to find time for doing Scottish work at all,
	given his onerous transport responsibilities? He replied:
	I get up earlier in the morning and I go to bed later at night.
	I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman works extremely hard and extremely conscientiously, and as a result of this development he is probably working even harder and even more conscientiously. But one has to ask whether it is sensible for decisions of such importance to be taken in this way. Is this really that desirable an arrangement?
	We also heard from the Secretary of State for Transport that, in his capacity as Secretary of State for Scotland, he would be meeting Scottish Executive Ministers weekly. That sounds a rather time-consuming matter. As Secretary of State for Scotland he is taking over an allocation of 13 Cabinet Committee membershipsnot exactly a de minimis role. When challenged, he saidand it puts matters into perspectivethat some Cabinet Committees were more important than others. That may be true, but implies a downgrading even of Cabinet Committee memberships as not that important.
	We heard that the Secretary of State would continue to have a separate Scottish Question Time. He also said, and it is particularly intriguing, that he would continue to be ultimately responsible for the implementation of the report of the boundary commission for Scotlandhe rightly said that he had a personal interest in that matter. That, too, will be a time-consuming role. On the question of fishing he said:
	I will be extremely engaged in the thing.
	How can the Secretary of State be extremely engaged in fishing policy, take decisions about the boundaries of Members of Parliament with constituencies north of the border, represent Scotland in the Cabinet, represent Scotland in the House and hold key and important discussions with the Chancellor about funding north of the border without reducing the amount of time available to him to perform and pay attention to his primary job as Secretary of State for Transport? It is quite clear that he cannot do both jobs adequately, which is precisely why we are worried.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman is speaking in favour of the Liberal Democrat motion, which refers to the crisis in transport, so will he provide the House with five examples of transport crisis in this country and five solutions advanced by his party to deal with them?

Tim Collins: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, if I were in full flow, I could confine myself to only five examples of transport crisis? How about a 250 per cent. increase in congestion on some motorways and the fact that trains are running later under Network Rail than under Railtrack and during the post-Hatfield arrangements? How about the fact that the Government's multi-modal studies have become an exercise in deferring and avoiding decisions rather than taking them? How about the fact that the British motorist faces the highest motoring taxes in the western world and receives in return the least amount of investment in roads spent by any major European Government? How about the fact that we have moved from a system in which decreasing public subsidy paid for more trains, to one in which greater public subsidy pays for fewer trains? There are five, just to start with, and there are many more.

Lawrie Quinn: What about the solutions?

Tim Collins: The hon. Gentleman asks about the solutions.

Lawrie Quinn: rose

Tim Collins: I shall give way in a moment. I shall not repeat the technique of the hon. Member for Bath who kept saying that the Secretary of State signed his policy document. We have already established that the Secretary of State is very busy: the idea that he is spending his nights leafing through the Liberal Democrat transport policy document may or may not be entirely valid. Plenty of policy documents have already been produced and more will no doubt be produced shortly. As to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), he can rest assured that under a Conservative Government, there would never be a year, as there was in calendar year 2001, when not a single inch of tarmac was added to the national road network.

Lawrie Quinn: The hon. Gentleman will not share with us even a slight snapshot of what might appear in his future manifesto, but could he go back to the last manifesto and tell us whether the Conservative party is now going to tear up the manifesto pledge to link the job of the Secretary of State for Scotland with another Government role?

Tim Collins: The hon. Gentleman's problem is that he will search high and low in the 2001 manifesto to find any commitment to split the job of the Secretary of State for Transport. There was no such commitment. However, if Labour Members believe that they should implement the Conservative policy of 2001, why did they not implement our policies to end Labour's war on the motorist and cut petrol tax? Such policies might well have been more popular and successful than those that the Government have advanced. The hon. Gentleman is not putting forward a sensible argument.
	We gather from the evidence provided by the Secretary of State to the Select Committee that being the Secretary of State for Scotland is and continues to be a very important job. He spoke about it being a job that had been around for 100 years and implied that it might continue to be around for another 100 years. We are not therefore talking about a temporary winding-up function or something that will consume his attention for only a few months.
	It will clearly be a necessary role for a long time, and it is bound, therefore, to take time away from concentrating on the accelerating problems caused by the state of the nation's transport infrastructure.
	The Secretary of State may well be a superhero. Perhaps it is the case that if he sits at his desk, discharging his functions as Transport Secretary, and a call comes through on the batphone to say that he needs to be doing something for Scotland, he can dash into a phone booth, rip aside his shirtdisplaying a big S for Scotlandand whiz up north of the border and sort out all the problems there. However, even the Secretary of State cannot be in two places at once. When he was giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, he was not dealing with transport issues. When he is deciding how many officials should work at the Scotland Office, he is not dealing with transport matters. We have been told by the junior Minister that Scotland Office Ministers need to be briefed on virtually everything, because they might be asked questions on a variety of topics, but the time spent being briefed will be time spent not dealing with transport.

Clive Efford: rose

Tim Collins: I am happy to give way to anybody who can explain why the transport system is in such a healthy state that it needs only a part-time, half-time Secretary of State to deal with it.

Clive Efford: The hon. Gentleman is paying too much attention to the motion and should pay a little more attention to transport policy. Conservative party policy is that the congestion charge in London should be abolished. Even though it is not raising as much money as the Mayor had hoped, it is raising money that is being invested in London's public transport. Will the Conservatives make Londoners pay for the lost revenue if the congestion charge is abolished?

Tim Collins: I have heard many accusations thrown across the Chamber, but that is the first time I have heard anyone be accused of spending too much time addressing their remarks to the motion. That is not normally a criticism, but I plead guilty anyway. The hon. Gentleman should not pretend that it is only the Conservatives who are opposed to the congestion charge. For example, the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) has been a consistent and passionate opponent of the congestion charge. She may wish to have a word with the hon. Gentleman later. The economic damage that is being done in London

Clive Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Collins: No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman already. He presumably wants to accuse me of spending too much time straying close to the motion. The congestion charge is not popular among Labour Members, and I suggest that he tries to persuade his colleagues before he starts trying to persuade us.
	The motion rightly refers to the transport crisis that the country faces. Thanks to earlier interventions from Labour Members, I have managed to set out some aspects of it. However, the central aspect of the transport crisis is thatregrettably, unarguably and unavoidablythings are getting worse, whether one takes congestion on motorways, the abandonment by the Government of the targets in their own 10-year transport plan to increase rail usage by 50 per cent. over 10 years or the amount of public money that is being spent and the return gained for it. The Government no longer believe that they can achieve those targets. We are falling further behind in terms of competitiveness with our European neighbours, let alone our competitors in other countries around the world.
	It is clear that what is needed above all, after six long years of Labour Government, is clear political grip from a single-minded, single-focused, determined and separate Secretary of State for Transport. That is something that we have had for only one year out of six, and it has just been changed. Apparently, the experiment of giving the right hon. Gentleman sole responsibility has been a failure. I regret that, but it appears to be the conclusion. The last thing the business leaders and others who are confused about the Government's transport policy need to know is that the man in charge is only part-time. The crisis cannot be addressed half-heartedly or by a part-timer. It requires a wholly different organisation and relationship than the one that has been put in place by this botched and incompetent reshuffle, and that is why we will support the motion tonight.

Lawrie Quinn: Before I try to address the motion, I remind the House that I worked as a professional in the railway industry for 19 years before I came here. As a chartered civil engineer, I have been able to formulate many views on how we should go about reinvigorating our transport infrastructure.
	The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) missed a tremendous opportunity to go into greater detail on some of the big challenges that the Government face on delivery. I did not hear him mention the skills shortages across engineering, or the skills shortages in the railway industry and in signalling. I am sure that 1,000 or more of my former colleagues would be delighted to spend a quiet moment or two on a station platformat Crewe, let us sayto hear the hon. Gentleman explain how we can repair a railway such as the west coast main line, which has suffered underinvestment and been left to decay slowly since the 1960s. We cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. The amendment to the Liberal Democrat motion correctly identifies the fact that considerable thought needs to be given to such work if we are to reinvigorate our transport infrastructure. It was always envisaged in the 10-year plan that a long time would be spent building teams that would make a difference to the much-needed investment in that infrastructure.
	I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, about the change that has happened since the days of Railtrack. I was one of the first people employed by Railtrack way back in 1994, before the company was put in place. The company did not know its assets and did not know their condition. Above all, it was floated on the market on the basis of a totally false prospectus. We now have to deal with that legacy from the previous Administration. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words for and recognition of the former colleagues of mine who are working hard for Network Rail to put those matters right.
	For me, good transport is essential not only to the quality of life, but to a successful economy. There can be no better example of that than my own constituency. Time and again, I hear calls from the local business community and local people for an upgrade for our transport infrastructure along the A64 corridor, and that involves not just roads but railways. We need plans to be put in place, and I believe that the Government, through their 10-year plan, have embarked on consideration of local concerns. That will respond to the agenda up the Yorkshire coast for improvements to the A64 corridor so that my constituents can have better access to the rest of the country and abroad. Our quality of life, with enjoyment of the coast, is far better than that of the cities, but we would like the economic advantage of being able to move our goods and services back and forward.
	We have almost reached the stage at which the next phase of communicationsthe internet and broadbandmay overtake the lack of investment in our transport infrastructure over the 18 failed years of Conservative Administration.
	Since 1945, the country and certainly this Chamber have preferred to use transport as a political football, rather than taking the approach of the German Parliament. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) revealingly acknowledged that we have many lessons to learn from Europe. I referred earlier to the recent visit of the president of Deutsche Bahn. That organisation, too, is learning about partnership approaches, such as the one that is bringing investment to our infrastructure.
	Following my intervention, the hon. Member for Bath accepted that the so-called crisis in transport that he currently perceives pre-dated not only the Labour Government and the 18 years of Conservative Government but went right back to the beginning of the 20th century. He seemed to be arguing that it even pre-dated the invention of aviation and many of the technological advances of the 20th century. Perhaps he should go back to the dictionary and reappraise his definition of crisis.
	For those reasons, I shall be happy to support my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench and reject the Liberal Democrat proposals in the Division Lobby tonight. We heard nothing from the Liberal Democrats that would provide solutions to the decades of failure to invest in our transport infrastructure and systems. Equally, although I have great regard for the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I was staggered at his failure to give us five snappy policies after his analysis of the problems.
	I like to think of myself as a transport professional. It is the easiest thing in the world for people to explain why things are wrong, but coming up with solutions to the problems needs full and proper analysis. We need planning for personnel and for innovation. We need to make sure that all the pieces fit and that systems are delivered to cost and on time.
	We are turning a corner in the history of our transport policy. I commend the work undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during the past year or so. He has done a great job leading an effective team. He has listened to transport professionals to find solutions that will stand the country in good stead and deliver those key objectivesimprovements in the quality of life and improvements to our economy.
	In his concluding speech, I hope that there might be time for my hon. Friend the Minister to resolve one or two contradictions in relation to freight transportation that many Members have noted. It is deeply regrettable that the Liberal Democrat spokesman did not raise some of those important matters. My hon. Friend is new to the Transport brief, but he will know that I co-chair the all-party group on rail, which is one of the largest such groups. During recent weeks, great concern and consternation have been expressed at the decision of Royal Mailwith almost no reference to the House, the Department for Transport or the Department of Trade and Industryto move mail services from rail to road. Members on both sides of the House who have advocated moving freight to rail are concerned about that decision. It gives the wrong signal at the wrong time.
	The Minister will know that giving out the wrong signal on the railways can lead to great damage and great danger. The problem is that, if there is a modal shift away from railways and back on to the roads, it could take three to four years to try to reinstate such services. I wish Ministers in the Department for Transport well in any deliberations and discussions that they may have with their colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to try, in the national logistical interest, to get Royal Mail to reconsider that decision. It has been presented as having been taken on commercial grounds, but, in the big picture of transport, it looks as though Royal Mail is wagging the dog's tail and making the dog walk in a different direction, so I hope that the Minister can say something positive about that proposition.
	I also want to mention the fact that in 2000 I was involved in the Standing Committee that considered the Transport Bill. It had about 14 sittings, and was a very good Committee. I see the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), my old colleague from that Committee, in his place tonight. We had a great time and there was great camaraderie, although we obviously disagreed about certain policy aspects. It was a good time for me personally. However, the fundamental fact was that we had to provide solutions to national problems, often with those solutions determined in a local context.
	I had great hopes for the Strategic Rail Authority. I thought that it would bring Railtrackmy former employerback to heel and provide the strategic rigour and vision that national transport policy needs, certainly on the railways, producing a clear way forward. I should like to thank the Government for supporting that measure and creating the SRA because in my part of the world, the Esk valley line, which runs from Middlesbrough to Whitby, is starting a new experiment to consider the standards and operational requirements, as well asI say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris)the safety criteria on that lightly used but strategically important rural railway line.
	Every day, that line carries children from the most remote parts of my constituency to schools in Whitby. It is an absolute lifeline, and there are many similar social railways throughout the country. The experiment on which the SRA is about to embark, through the Esk valley partnership, is very important to the national interest, and it is a clear local example of a solution to the type of problems that sit in the pending trays of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench.
	In conclusion, I hope that we will hear more about the important issue of investment in the transport industry. People are the key. I hope that the Government will make good, solid progress with the rail academy and in trying to encourage more people to take up careers in engineering, so that we can have the key peoplewhether they are signal engineers, civil engineers or mechanical engineersthat we need to work not only in the SRA and the railway operating companies, but in the Highways Agency and throughout all our local government partners.
	At the end of the day, my reason for supporting the Government tonight comes down to one thing: partnership. The Secretary of State is a member of a very successful team that is changing the direction and the destiny of transport policy in this country, and I commend the Government amendment to the House.

Norman Baker: It is a little strong to refer to changing the destiny of transport policy, but I agree with the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) about rail freight, and about Royal Mail in particular. It is a disgrace that Royal Mail proposes to cut mail trains and to transfer so much freight on to the roads. Mail is still a nationalised industry, and the Department of Trade and Industry should lean hard on Royal Mail to ensure that it has a proper environmental policy and promotes rail freight. If those train paths are lost, they will not come back. They will be replaced by overnight working, saving costs for the Strategic Rail Authority. That will be the end of rail mail. We must keep those freight trains going.
	In 1997, when the Labour Government came to power, many of us had real hopes of a sensible transport policy. The Conservatives had neglected the environmental aspects, and had the biggest road-building programme since the Romansthat was how they described it. After years of the Conservatives, when the railways were falling apart and had been privatised, the Labour Government were committed to a transport policy. We had a Deputy Prime Minister who knew about transport from his previous occupation and his personal interests, and there was an understanding that we could not build our way out of problems for ever. We had tried for 100 years to build our way out of road congestion, and failed. There was an understanding that we had to aim for road traffic reduction, and a 10-year transport plan that had some sensible targets and philosophy.
	Despite some useful steps that the Government have takenmy hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) outlined some of themI am sorry to say that they have now reverted to the default policy, which is not dissimilar to what we had when the Conservatives were in office. The default policy is to try to keep transport off the agenda, to build roads under pressure, to tinker with railways and not achieve much. I am sorry to put it in such stark terms, but I feel that that is where we have got to.
	Gone are the days when environment and transport were under one Department, which could examine those two issues in unison, and which was headed by the Deputy Prime Minister. Gone are the days of multi-modal studies that were designed to deliver rail and road objectives, which was the intention when they were set up. We now have a botched union between Transport and Scotland. It is a marriage of convenience rather than a marriage of utility, which is what we would have had with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Multi-modal study schemes suggest road and rail improvements, but the road improvements get funded by the Treasury and go ahead and the rail improvements get shunted into the sidings.

Chris Mole: The hon. Gentleman is speaking against his own motion. Does he not agree that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which had wide responsibilities far beyond transport, required a great deal more of the Secretary of State's time than the Department for Transport and Scotland will?

Norman Baker: No, I do not agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath dealt with that point. Environment and transport are two sides of the same coin. Having someone dealing with those two issues together makes sense both for transport policy and for environment policy. There is no such marriage between Scotland and Transport, unless it is dealing with Waverley station to which the Secretary of State referred.

John Horam: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for policy on the environment to be closely involved with transport. It is a pity that that link has now gone. However, does he not think that the major failure was not to involve the Chancellor of the Exchequer properly with transport policy?

Norman Baker: I agree, and the Environmental Audit Committee, which the hon. Gentleman chairs and of which I was happy to be a member for some time, has consistently made that point since 1997. The Chancellor has to be involved in these decisions.
	We are now told that rail fares will have to go up when the cost of motoring is going down. The figures from a parliamentary answer that I have received show that in real terms the cost of motoring decreased by 1.3 per cent. between 1974 and 2001; the cost of travelling by rail went up by 85 per cent. in real terms over that period; and the cost of travelling by bus increased by 66 per cent. in real terms. Instead of dealing with that disparity, which is widening under Labour, the Prime Minister caught a cold when the fuel protest took place. Labour went behind in the opinion polls for the only time in the last Parliament, and the Prime Minister clearly said to the Deputy Prime Minister, Lay off the motorist. A radical transport policy is now off the agenda. and so it has proved ever since.
	Unless the gap between the cost of motoring and the cost of travelling by public transport is narrowedthat should be one of the Government's objectives to deal with social exclusionthere will not be a renaissance of rail in this country. There will be continued congestion on our roads, with more and more vehicles and more and more people deciding that they will go by road if they possibly can.
	That is not a sensible transport strategy in any way. My constituents in Lewes being told that they must pay higher rail fares to use clapped-out slam-door stockwhich, notwithstanding the Government's deadline, will be here for at least two more yearsis difficult to swallow. That is one aspect.
	Another aspect is congestion. Road congestion, we are told, is dealt with by building more roads. That is the Government's new answer: using the hard shoulder of motorways and building more and more bypasses. We are told that congestion on the railways must be met by fewer trains, which is a curious transport policy to pursue. We are back in the realms of the Tories, with money spent on the railways being called subsidy, and money spent on the roads being called investment. I thought that we had got rid of that mindset when the Government came to power: it may have gone for a while, but now it is back with a vengeance.
	In the short time remaining, I want to concentrate on one or two constituency issues, to give other Members a chance to contribute to the debate. It is a great shame that we have a system that enables road schemes to go through quickly and be funded properly, while rail schemes never seem to get funded. We may have investment in the west coast main line and some new rolling stock, but where are the myriad small schemes across the country that could make a real difference to individual constituencies? They would not cost a great deal, but they never actually happen. In my constituency, as the Secretary of State for Transport will know, there is a long-running campaign, now 24 years old, to reinstate the Lewes-Uckfield railway line. We have the ridiculous situation in which a railway line comes down from London all the way to Uckfieldto a dead end. A six-mile gap exists between there and Lewes, which is still a major rail junction with trains to the south coast, Brighton, Eastbourne, up to London, across to Ashford and so on. That six-mile gap cannot be filled, despite all the county and district councillors being in favour, despite all Members of Parliament in the area being in favourLabour, Conservative and Liberal Democratand despite the fact that we all went to the Strategic Rail Authority the other day to meet Richard Bowker. Everybody is on board, and the county council has presented a case that demonstrates that the railway line, once reinstated, will turn in an operational profit. We still cannot find a way of getting that railway reinstated. Why can the Government not find a way of dealing with those small-scale schemes up and down the country that would not cost much but would make a real difference?
	There are other examples. There is a crying need in my constituency for one good railway station at Newhaven. At the moment, we have three, and they are an absolute disgrace. What on earth people must think when they come across on the ferry from Dieppe and see the railway stations at Newhaven God only knows. One of those, Newhaven Marine, has one train a week. Why? The reason is that the operator does not want to close the station because that will lead to a public inquiry, which will reveal the catastrophic way in which stations are managed down there. Consequently, we have the faade of one train a week to keep the station open. Such a scheme would not cost a great deal of money, and could be dealt with quickly by the Government, in conjunction with the district councils, which would contribute, as would the port owners. Yet nothing happens.
	A proposal exists for a small stretch of lineit is called a cordabout 300 yd long, which would enable freight trains to run along the coast without the necessity of going into Eastbourne and back out again, which is a huge diversion in terms of the distance and journey time. Yet that cannot be funded either. It was recommended by the multi-modal study and is now not happening. The multi-modal study recommendation in relation to the Lewes-Uckfield line is now not happening. The electrification of the Ashford-Hastings line, which was recommended by the multi-modal study, is not happening. The electrification of the Uckfield-Oxted line, which was recommended, is not happening. Yet the road schemes will go ahead.
	In my constituency, as I mentioned earlier when I intervened on the Secretary of State, the road scheme is the proposed dual carriageway between Lewes and Polegate. It is an environmentally destructive scheme that will cost millions of pounds and will go though an area of outstanding natural beautyit is absolutely beautiful countryside which has a railway line lying parallel to it. I do not know the result of the south coast multi-modal study but I will lay money now that the Government will give a green light to that scheme, whatever the consequences and whatever the cost. As for the comment that Liberal Democrats say one thing nationally and another locally, let me tell the Minister that we do not: nationally, we say that we must be careful about new road schemes, and locally, in my constituency, I am saying that I do not want that scheme.
	If there is money going, I will have it for all the rail schemes that I mentioned because they could all be paid for out of the cost of the road and I would rather have those schemes. We have had road schemes galore over the years, while rail schemes have always been second best and have never been implemented. Let us start to turn that round once and for all and try to achieve something instead.
	Let me leave the Minister with a final thought, although I shall have the chance to discuss it with him in greater detail on Wednesday, when I am grateful that he will meet me. On the parallel railway lineprobably next to where the Government want to build a dual carriagewayI have persuaded the rail company, South Central, to reduce season ticket fares by a third. It is now cheaper to go from Eastbourne to Lewes because a season ticket used to cost 23.20 but now costs 16. A season ticket between Seaford and Lewes used to cost 15.50 but now costs 10. There has been a 35 per cent. increase in season ticket sales for those lines since the scheme was introducedwith little publicity. There has been a 13 per cent. increase in passengers using the line. The rail lines run parallel to the road yet the Government do not want to talk about that. They do not want to talk about cheaper fares because they say that that is a matter for the Strategic Rail Authority or the companyit is not their problem. However, building a road is their problem and they will no doubt do that.
	We must have a better system of comparing road schemes with rail schemes for a specific area. There is a corridor where they co-exist. The Government had the theory exactly right by setting up multi-modal studies. The great tragedy is that following those studies the road schemes will go ahead and the rail schemes will not. We are back to the Conservative transport policy.

Geraint Davies: What a rag-bag of rubbish we have heard from both the Liberals and the Tories. We heard that the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) would tax, tax, tax the motorist and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) told us how much he would tax those who want to fly out of the country in order to fund his party's plans. Yet, we heard earlier from the Secretary of State that the Liberals' strategy is not to increase tax but to generate new schemes using existing resources. In sharp contrast, the Tories' only policy is to cut taxes for the motorist and then increase investment using money that they would not have. That was an incoherent suggestionthey have a monopoly on tittle-tattle without policy.

Don Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his Government's policy that aviation should cover all its externalities and, thus, the tax subsidy to airlines should be reduced?

Geraint Davies: The Government's policy is not to reduce tax. Obviously more tax would be generated by the natural increase of aviation at 6 per cent. a year. A European-level review of the environmental costs of aviation is required and, in the meantime, that may be proxied by the rate of increase of supply lagging behind the rate of increase of demand for airport delivery.
	The simple fact is that we have heard tittle-tattle and incoherent rubbish. I note that the motion moved by the hon. Member for Bath does not call for a full-time Secretary of State for Transport but for a full-time Secretary of State for the time being. That is because the Liberals do not really know what they are doing, as has been revealed. They have not factored in the reality that regional assemblies might take control of aspects of transport policy in the way that has happened in Scotland and London. They are not looking to the futurewe heard the usual opportunist rubbish. They also say that the Transport Secretary's scope should be widened to the environment. That does not really stack up.
	The key issue of policy delivery is what we will do in the next 10 years to deliver an integrated transport plan. That is the challenge facing the Government and it is why they are spending 180 billion on a mixed package to balance development that respects the needs of the economy and the environment, and the requirement for social access to a networked system of transport.
	The difficulty has been caused because 1.5 million more people are in jobs and there was chronic underinvestment for many years. The Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), asked how a 5 per cent. increase in employment can lead to a larger increase in congestionI shall speak slowly at this point.
	If a network ran at a capacity of 95 per cent. and an extra 5 per cent. was added to it, it would become gridlocked and there could be an infinite increase in congestion. The basic knowledge of the science of transport is woefully inadequate, as we might expect.
	What problem do we have to tackle and what have we done about it so far? Rail usage has increased by a fifth. Investment in rail in the 10 years up to 1997 was half that planned for the 10 years from 1997. Modern modes of transport have emerged in my town of Croydon. I was instrumental in creating the public-private partnership of Tramlink, a 200 million scheme that shifts 16 million people a year in an environmentally sensitive way. The PPP is making progress on the tube and will bring 16 billion to it to keep the capital moving.
	Proper consultation on the aviation strategy of the future is also emerging. Aviation policy is difficult. We cannot simply have the plain approach of predict and provide, as the Conservatives did for roads. It is not sustainable in terms of environmental damage. There is not just the problem of noise and pollution, but the visual impairment of Britain's skies as planes criss-cross everywhere. We need a balance between that and the hair-shirt approach of no more aviation.
	Hon. Members mentioned factoring in the environmental cost in a tax. I have sympathy with that. In the meantime, that can be proxied, as I said, by ensuring that the rate of increase in supply does not hurtle forward at the rate of increase in demand. It is important to balance the strategy for hubs and spokes for airports that serve the regions, the capital and large cities with access, communication and pollution. We need to think about the extent to which the rail network needs to feed new or existing airports rather than having more airports and air travel, which is more polluting.
	On the road and rail balance, predict and provide is discredited. We need to think about how to maximise the efficiency of the existing network. Sadly, for some people that will mean reducing the number of small rail routes, which are not used so frequently, that stop strategic rail routes. There are bottlenecks. We need to increase efficiency and prioritise. Ultimately, we need to advance the rationale behind congestion charging, which is the targeted rationing of road space through the marketplace. The bold step to provide the powers to do that was led by the Deputy Prime Minister. The Mayor of London put his foot in the waterhalf his leg, in factto show that we can work on that idea. I am glad that the new Secretary of State is considering ways to build on that rationale to use our network more effectively so that more people can move around with greater ease and without causing unnecessary congestion.
	The hon. Member for Bath raised the idea of bonds for congestion charging. The revenue raised in London is less than predicted. One reason for that is the success of the congestion charging scheme, which underlines the risk involved in making predictions. If we went down the route advocated by the hon. Gentleman and gave bonds to cities and towns, they would have to bear the downside of the financial risk of those predictions being wrong and could come a cropper in terms of local taxation. The system is not completely thought out.
	I want to draw to the Minister's attention the impact of e-commerce on the landscape of transport infrastructure. The reality is that if people in our communities spent one day in five working from home by e-mail and if one in five purchases were made by e-mail, one in five offices and one in five shops would close down. The transport infrastructure and the renaissance of a town centre in terms of houses would be transformed.
	We need to take a long-term view and think how behaviour will change over the next 10 years. People want to travel, but they do not want to do so if they do not have to. We therefore have to factor such revolutionary changes into our transport planning.

Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that there will be a large increase in leisure travel across the globe? It is estimated, for example, that 100 million Chinese will soon be joining world travellers. That is the challenge that we need to prepare for in global transport policy, and are not Ministers and the Department doing so?

Geraint Davies: Indeed they are. My hon. Friend has underlined the challenge facing the global economy alongside the Kyoto targets. We need to establish a framework in which we think of everyone, not just one person. There is a parallel in the comments of the hon. Member for Lewes about the micro-logic of a postal service being taken off a train, but the macro-impact not being in the long-term public interest. In connection with that, a Save Mail on Rail campaign will be launched at a media conference at 11 o'clock on Tuesday, 24 June in Conference Room C, 1 Parliament street.
	In conclusion, we face massive challenges, not just in e-commerce but in the global environmental and economic sphere, and the way in which we fit that in with social access. At a time when we face momentous challenges, it is sad that the Liberals and Tories should support a petty and opportunistic little motion about what people should have in their in-tray, rather than grasp strategic opportunities and lead people into a rosier future.

Norman Lamb: The perfect preparation for tonight's debate on the crisis in transport was spending just over an hour on a train outside Stowmarket going absolutely nowhere this morning. At least we had the benefit of being able to contemplate the Suffolk countryside, which you know very well, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, that did not affect the frustration and anger that other passengers and I felt. Sadly, that is all too common an occurrence on that line. This morning, the excuse was that the train in front of us had broken down, but that is just one of a range of excuses, including leaves and the wrong type of snow. Last year, we even had a cow on the line near Colchester. The excuses are myriad, but the failure to improve the system and the network continues.
	Interestingly, the Government amendment recognises the importance of an efficient transport system for economic growth and the economy in generally, thus highlighting the Government's failure to get to grips with the problem over the past six years. One of their big failures in economic policy is the failure to improve productivity, which is affected by a transport system that does not work efficiently. We have such a system in abundance in this country. As other hon. Members have said, the problem is getting worse. The SRA recently produced statistics for East Anglia showing that 20 per cent. of trains in the region are running late. Since last year, the number of such trains has been increasing, accompanied by falling passenger satisfaction, more complaints and more reasons for passengers to choose to go by car rather than take the risk of going by train. The problem, at least in part, is dire infrastructure and a failure, as many Members on both sides of the House have said, to invest in it over a long period. The Secretary of State made the point that both money and management are needed, and the management of Network Rail continue to leave a lot to be desired.
	Insiders in East Anglia refer to the constant failed management in dealing with the problems of maintaining the network in a reasonably efficient way. Nevertheless, a number of good things have happened. In my constituency, on a branch line, we have new evening services and a new service from Norwich to Cambridge, but all too often journeys end in frustration and anger because of endless delays.
	I want to go on to another issue, which I mentioned in an intervention: the future of community transport schemes. Throughout the country they are facing a funding crisis. In Norfolk some impressive schemes have been developed, such as dial-a-ride schemes, to which the Secretary of State referred, and hospital medi-bus schemes, which allow people to phone to arrange for a bus to take them from their door to the hospital or to their GP. Such rural transport partnerships have been funded by the Countryside Agency. Their remit has been
	to enhance rural people's access to jobs, services and social activities.
	Various groups involved in community transport have written to Norfolk MPs and told us of the financial crisis that they face, as they are unable to obtain funding to operate in future. Their call is for sustainable funding that will ensure the survival of those services. The services get to the people most in need in some of the most remote villages, and as we heard earlier, avoid the problem of large empty buses, sometimes double-deckers, hurtling round country lanes with no passengers. They help to ensure that people in isolated and very rural communities can get to jobs and engage in the economy in a way that they were previously unable to do.
	The North Walsham Area Community Transport Association in my constituency was mentioned in the social exclusion unit's report published in February this year. That association was used as a case study to show how the community transport sector exists to provide additional transport in order to reduce social exclusion, by getting people to work and to the services that they need.
	What is the problem? The problem is that the association has come to the end of its three-year funding from the Countryside Agency. I accept that in an ideal world, it is best for the funding to come from local authorities, but the local authorities themselves are strapped for cash. In Norfolk, we had an increase in council tax of more than 15 per cent. From its precept the county council could not replace the funding from the Countryside Agency. The association is happy to work on the basis of a reduced subsidy, but it will need longer to get established so that the services will survive.
	Community transport schemes are not commercial services. They meet a social need identified by the social exclusion unit. The Government have stumbled on an effective, flexible public transport system, which is ideally suited to sparsely populated rural areas. Please do not let us lose the good service that has been established.
	It is clear from what we have heard tonight that the scale of the problems confronting the transport infrastructure and transport services cries out for a full-time Secretary of State for Transport and a competent one. When the story of the Government is told, I suspect it will identify four wasted years while transport was the responsibility of the Deputy Prime Minister. There were no obvious achievements or progress during those four years. Instead, the right hon. Gentleman presided over increasing chaos. The public are paying the price. The Government must get on with their task urgently. The debacle over the reshuffle shows that they are still not serious about sorting the problem out.

Tom Brake: I congratulate the Secretary of State on setting out policyrare in such a debate. However, it was Liberal Democrat policy that he set out. His knowledge of it was incomplete and he needs to study harder, but I am sure he will be able to fit that into his busy programme.
	The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) gave us some good knockabout stuff. It was long on puns, but I am afraid that it was rather short on policy. In the 26 minutes for which he spoke, I could detect no Tory policy apart from a reference to a couple of unnamed policy papers that have apparently been published and to the fact that some more may be on their way; no doubt, three will arrive together. However, I welcome his support for the motion.
	The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) referred to the shortage of engineers, which is a very significant point. He may be interested to know that I had discussions with GoAhead only a couple of days ago about whether it could play any role with regard to one of my local schools, Wallington high school for girls, which is considering applying for specialist school status in respect of engineering, and whether a link might be established. Getting women engineers to work in the industry would be a very positive development.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) clearly demonstrated why he is widely recognised in Parliament as the most effective campaigner on environmental issues.
	The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) does not know Liberal Democrat policy, for which I can forgive him. What is more worrying for him, however, is the fact that he does not know his own Government's policy. If he is seeking to make further progress up the greasy pole, it is important that he acquaint himself with that policy, otherwise, his progress will be limited. He trumpeted the 180 billion that has been mentioned, but yet again failed to recognise that it is not 180 billion in today's prices and that it is not all Government money. Most embarrassingly for him, the amount is less than the Conservatives spent in their last six years in government.

Geraint Davies: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that the present value of the 180 billion was 158 billion. How much would the hon. Gentleman spend at today's prices, or does he not know?

Tom Brake: I know exactly how much we would spend. We have said that we would stick to the Government's spending policies and also put in some additional funds to restore the rail passenger partnership fund, for instance. What the hon. Gentleman needs to do is ask the Secretary of State, who has a copy of our policy document, to circulate it to Labour Members.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) did a very good job of setting out the pain of his own travelling experiences, as well as some of the improvements that have occurred in his area.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said, this Government's approach to the transport crisis is characterised by indecision, lack of leadership and the Treasury's initiative-sapping stranglehold over alternative means of funding transport improvements. Let us consider London and the tube public-private partnership, to which the hon. Member for Croydon, Central referred. Let us go back to 20 March 1998, when the policy was introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister. He said that it would take two years to negotiate the contracts. It has now taken more than five years and we are still not there. He referred to the fact that only 100,000 had been spent on consultancy fees. How much has been spent on the PPP now? No less than 500 million. The Government's credit cards must be burning at this point. Who will pick up the bill for that unrestrained spending spree? It is Londoners who will do so over the 30 years for which those contracts will last.

Norman Baker: My hon. Friend is right that Londoners will pick up the bill. Is he aware that the journey from Leicester Square to Covent Garden is the most expensive public transport journey in the world mile for mile, and is more expensive even than flying on Concorde?

Tom Brake: I do not need to add anything to that very telling point.
	One could forgive the Deputy Prime Minister for making a mistake about how much was going to be spent on the PPP if the Government had at least had an estimate of the cost, but, of course, no such estimate existed.
	The Deputy Prime Minister has confirmed as much. We do not have an estimate of how much the contracts will cost. The permanent secretary at the Department for Transport confirmed in a Select Committee inquiry that the Government had made no estimate whatsoever. It was not normal, apparently, for the Government to estimate the cost of such a project, even though it has ended up costing 500 million to date, and the handover is running three years late.
	We already have the first evidence of the sort of dispute that will arise in such a contractual set-up. On 11 April, there was a dispute between Metronet and Tubelines about who was to blame for delayed trains when glue caught fire and generated smoke, causing a fire alert. I suspect that that is the first of many hundreds of disputes that will arise as a result of the policy of PPP and fragmentation.

Norman Baker: It is a sticking point.

Tom Brake: Indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for that pun.
	Congestion charging is another great example of the lack of leadership that the Government have shown. Congestion is one of the single biggest transport problems in London, costing businesses billions of pounds, with many associated health problems. What leadership has the Secretary of State provided on that issue? A Library briefing says:
	The present Secretary of State has refused to comment on the scheme, saying that the congestion charge is wholly the mayor's responsibility.
	In questions, the Secretary of State was repeatedly asked by different Members to confirm his view on congestion charges, but with the biggest congestion charge scheme anywhere in the country up and running under his nose, in London, he had no view on it whatsoever. His right hon. Friend the Prime Minister showed no more leadership. The Conservative leader, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), asked him in Prime Minister's Questions:
	Does the Prime Minister think that the London congestion charge is a good idea or a bad idea?[Official Report, 5 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 267.]
	No answer was forthcomingwe were told that it is down to the Mayor.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tom Brake: I am afraid not, given the lack of time.
	On Crossrail, a similar lack of leadership leaves that scheme in limbo, putting at risk London's Olympic bid. It is sad when the Evening Standard, which is running a campaign in support of Crossrail, has to trumpet the fact that we finally have a Minister with specific responsibility for Crossrail as a major transport development. Indeed, he is here today. Crossrail has been debated for 14 years, yet we are only at the stage of identifying a Minister who has specific responsibility for it.
	Aviation policy is another example of lack of vision. The Secretary of State says time and again that the Government's policy is not one of predict and provide. Let us hear from the Minister in what respect it is not that. Will he announce some targets for rail substitution? I suspect not, because he is talking to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who knows that there are no such targets. Will he talk about the fiscal measures that the Government are going to introduce? Of course not.
	The Secretary of State's performance lacks substance and has done nothing to reassure commuters, rail passengers or bus users that the crisis is over. His promises of improvements on the way and progress being made convince nobody. The fact is that the Government's transport policy is late and overpriced, like the trains; inches forwards, like the traffic on our roads; and stops without explanation, like a tube train in a tunnel. The Government's amendment reeks of complacency and deserves to be resoundingly defeated. I urge all Members to support our motion.

Kim Howells: The title of this debate is an expression of the unique sense of humour of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). It is humorous because he knows full well that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is tackling with great energy and skill the job of delivering a better transport system for this country. The hon. Gentleman's speech was humorous, too, although whether it was meant to be is another matter. It was very elegantly delivered, but it was a Dear Santa lettera wish list of goodies with all the price tags conveniently torn off. Of course, that is what we always get from the Liberals; they are very good at that. I hope that that goes on the record, because I have never said anything good about the Liberals before. They are very good at tearing the price list off any proposals.
	The hon. Gentleman is a bright and perceptive human being, and he knows that the transport networks in this country have been underfunded for decades. Modernisation and even basic maintenance have been put off, and their performance has been hampered by stop-go funding, short-term thinking and botched privatisations. We can all see the results. Road and rail networks are operating beyond their designed capacity. Indeed, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) told us of his frustration this morning. The tenor of his speech left us without any sense of optimism about rail transport, but he also left his charisma on the train. I thought that he was going to fall asleep during his speech. It was a classic. First, he described this terrible, unmitigated disaster, then he went on to say, But they've put on a few new train services. It's excellent, it's really goodwe've got this scheme and we've got that scheme. Those schemes did not fall out of the air. They are the result of a Labour Government and Labour transportation policies and, as I shall explain, there is more to come.
	The Government have decided to make the improvement of our transportation systems a top priority because we care about the quality of our public services and because we recognise that the deterioration cannot be allowed to continue. So, starting in 2001, we committed unprecedented levels of new funding under a 10-year programme of investment: a 180 billion modernisation programme to begin to turn around decades of underinvestment. There are no quick fixes. There are deep-rooted issues and long-term trends that need to be addressed here. We have made it clear that, in many cases, things would inevitably get worse before they got better. That is why a long-term strategy is essential. Only sustained investment, year on year, can begin to deliver the modern, high-quality transport system that this country needs.
	When the 10-year plan was published, it was almost universally welcomed. Even the Opposition could only express their disbelief that we could deliver the levels of investment that were promised. Well, we are delivering those levels of investment. We are now spending more than 250 million each week to improve transportation in this country. That is an increase of some 65 per cent. over the past three years. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) did us a grave disservice when he alleged that that amounted to nothing more than tinkering with transportation policy. The 9 billion being spent on the upgrading of the west coast main line does not represent tinkering with policy.
	Total investment in transportation infrastructurepublic and privatehas nearly doubled since the days of the last Tory Government, and that is allowing for inflation. Investment in the railways has trebledthat is not tinkering; it is real investmentand investment through local authorities has more than doubled. These increases in funding have been translated into real activity on the ground. Construction industry output in the road and rail sectors has seen the sharpest increases on record in the past two years and is now at an all-time high.
	Of course, it takes more than two years to plan and deliver major new transport schemes.
	As we have acknowledged, events have thrown up new problems and priorities for the railway network that have increased the scale of the task. All the while, our sustained economic success is producing ever-growing demand for travel on our railways, on our roads and in our skies. I am glad that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) is back in her seat. She said that we should have concentrated on rail substitution, rather than air travel. She did not tell me about the 11.03 to Auckland, New Zealand, or the 12.15 to New York. It is nonsense. It is the kind of soundbite that the Liberals love. When we start to pick it apart, it is fatuous nonsense. The hon. Lady is a good exponent of ita past master.
	It is natural that people are impatient for change. So are we, but we are in it for the long haul and we have already made important progress in many areas, although we do not often read about those. In many parts of the country, travellers are already beginning to see benefits. Rail is a case in point. Following the instability caused by privatisation and the collapse of Railtrack, we put in place a new structure for the industry. Network Rail has been set up as a public interest company whose prime objective is to provide a safe and reliable rail network, rather than to generate profits for shareholders.
	Rail use is at historically high levels. Since 1997, it has risen by over 23 per cent. In the 1990s, British Rail reckoned that 500 miles of track needed to be replaced each year just to stand still. That dropped to 300 miles per year in the run-up to privatisation under the Tories and to 200 miles per year immediately after privatisation. This year, Network Rail will replace more than 740 miles of trackmore than has ever been replaced in the history of the railway industry in this country. That is a tremendous achievement. That is real investment, not the tinkering of the hon. Member for Lewes, who whinged for 20 minutes.
	Across the network, performance and reliability are now steadily improving. The annual average performance measure at the end of March was 79.2 per cent., up 1.2 per cent. on the previous year. The latest passenger satisfaction survey, despite the descriptions of disaster, showed that 74 per cent. of all passengers were fairly or very satisfied with the journey just completed.

Chris Ruane: They were not Liberals.

Kim Howells: They certainly were not Liberals. They would not know a good journey if they sat on one.
	On the roads, like the hon. Member for Lewes we recognise that building new roads is not in itself a sustainable long-term solution to growing congestion, but we make no bones about the importance of providing increased funding for targeted road improvements, increasing capacity on key routes and at bottlenecks. On the national network, 11 major new road schemes have already been completed, 64 further schemes are in construction or programmed, 21 of them bypasses, and further major announcements are planned. A similar number of major improvement schemes are being taken forward by local authorities across the country on the roads for which they are responsible.
	At the same time, minimising impact on the environment remains a key consideration. All major road schemes are subject to strict environmental appraisal. Where schemes have failed that appraisal, we have rejected them. For those schemes that are built, funding is being made available to reduce the impact of schemes, as with the tunnelling schemes that we have announced at Stonehenge and at Hindhead. The Highways Agency will also spend around 3.3 billion on smaller-scale improvements, many involving the use of new technology, to improve safety and to reduce congestion.
	I notice that road safety was not mentioned either in the Tory or the Liberal

Robert Smith: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 304.

Question accordingly negatived.

Oliver Letwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has notified me of a point of order, but will he please let me get the Divisions out of the way? Then I will take his point of order. [Hon. Members: Why?] Because we are on Division business at the moment. I know that it will be a prolonged point of order, and I like things to be tidy. That is why.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):
	The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 174.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House recognises the importance of transport infrastructure to continued growth and prosperity; welcomes the Government's commitment to a sustained improvement in the transport system; acknowledges that it inherited a legacy of decades of under-investment which continues to have severe adverse consequences for transport performance; notes the additional pressures which economic growth since 1997 is putting on the transport networks; welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to investment of 180 billion through the Ten Year Transport Plan and to its policies of balanced improvements to all modes of transport consistent with wider environmental objectives; recognises achievements already evident in, for example, improved rail rolling stock, falling numbers of road accidents and increased bus patronage; and believes that the Government has put the appropriate ministerial arrangements in place for further improvement.

Oliver Letwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This morning, I expected that the Home Secretary would wish to make an immediate statement to the House on the intrusion into Windsor castle. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There now seems to be a habit of shouting down Members when they are addressing the House. It is wrong.

Oliver Letwin: When it became apparent that the Home Secretary did not intend to do so, I submittedas you know, Mr. Speakera request to you for an urgent question. When it became apparent that the request would not be granted, but that the Home Secretary would make a statement tomorrow, I did not demur, thinking that he wanted time, quite reasonably, to consider the reports he received before explaining them to the House.
	I imagine that you, Mr. Speaker, will have been as surprised as I was to discover this evening that the Home Secretary had chosen instead to make his statement through a range of press, radio and television interviews. If the House of Commons is no longer to be the place in which the Home Secretary of the day answers for the safety of the monarch and the protection of the people, what is this House?

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that what my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) describes is in direct contravention of your own rulings and directions from the Chair and that a Division on item 2 on the Order Paper is imminent, would you like to consider whether the period of that Division will give the Home Secretary time to come to the House and put right what is patently very wrong? The Home Secretary is persisting in doing what you have repeatedly said from the Chair must not be done: Ministers making statements outside the House before they come to the House.

Brian Mawhinney: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. For six years, you have been encouraging, instructing and making rulings from the Chair that Ministers should bring their business to the House first before they take it to the media. This is another example in which your rulings have been flouted. I wonder whether you would reflect on whether you need more authority from the House to ensure that Ministers take seriously the rulings that you make about the primacy of this place.

Peter Tapsell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that when, some years ago, an intruder found his way into the Queen's bedroom in Buckingham palace, the Home Secretary of the day, William Whitelaw, came immediately to the Dispatch Box to make a full statement about that serious intrusion and breach of security. He took full personal responsibility, and it subsequently transpired that he had offered his resignation to the Prime Minister. Is not that in the most stark contrast to the behaviour of today's Home Secretary?

Andrew MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance, as a number of my constituents work at Windsor castle and have contacted me today to ask me to ask questions of the Home Secretary? What do I say to them when it becomes clear that you legitimately turned down a request for an urgent question because you believed that the first opportunity they would have to hear what the Home Secretary had to say was in the House answering questions from hon. Members? Instead, they hear him on radio and on television tonight, which is an abuse. What can I say to my constituents?

Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, can you rule whether the security of the institutions of the stateParliament, Government, the monarchy or the courtsshould be a matter for which the Home Secretary is accountable? Secondly, if the Home Secretary is making a statement when he is no longer the police authority for London, does that not have implications for the proper ability of the authorities in the Thames valley or London to discipline the police? The Home Secretary has clearly pre-empted matters by making statements to the public.

Paul Tyler: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. Ministerial responsibility is nothing to do with the Speaker. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have raised points of order, and I know of their concern. Tomorrow is the day that these questions can be put to the Home Secretary. I know about the arguments that even I have had with Government Ministers regarding statements, but my deep concern is always about policy matters, which I prefer to be put before the House.
	If it is a matter of gathering information, of course it is preferable for Ministers to come to the House, but that does not debar a Minister, such as the Home Secretary, from saying something outside the Chamber. The important thing is that I need not give a reason for refusing an urgent question. It is clear to all Members of the House that, had the Home Secretary come to the Dispatch Box at the usual time, the information might not have been available then as it is now.
	There is no more I can say at the moment, except that I will take hon. Members' concerns to the Home Secretary. I ask the House for patience. Tomorrow is the day when hon. Members can put their concerns to the Home Secretary. [Interruption.] Well, if it is too late, I could always tell the Home Secretary not to come. [Laughter.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would share that view.

Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. Clearly, some extremely important issues are at stake, and you have on a number of occasions identified the importance of coming to the House with information. You have clarified that point now, but will you give consideration to whether it would be appropriate and helpful to you and to the Chair to have clarity on the circumstances in which you could require a Minister to come to the House and make a statement? My colleagues and I would be happy to put a proposition to the Select Committee on Modernisation so that this matter could be clarified, if that would be helpful to you.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that these matters should be left as they are at the moment. The points are now on the record.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 137.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time.
	Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 116.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.
	DELEGATED LEGISLATION
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Religion Or Belief Discrimination

That the draft Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.[Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

That the draft Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	Division deferred till Wednesday 25 June, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002].
	BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
	Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 26th June, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Peter Hain relating to Standards and Privileges, Standards and Privileges: Amendments to Standing Orders and Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards: Term of Office not later than Six o'clock; the Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the Questions may be decided after the moment of interruption; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 29th October 2002 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.[Derek Twigg.]
	NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
	Ordered,
	That
	(1) the proposal for a draft Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
	(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 8th July at half-past Two o'clock; and
	(3) at that sitting
	(a) the Committee shall consider the legislative proposal referred to it under paragraph (1) above;
	(b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings not later than two and a half hours after their commencement; and
	(c) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).[Derek Twigg.]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Ordered,
	That Sir Patrick Cormack be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Richard Ottaway be added to the Committee.[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ACCOMMODATION AND WORKS

Ordered,
	That Keith Hill be discharged from the Accommodation and Works Committee and Mr Bob Ainsworth be added to the Committee.[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

HEALTH

Ordered,
	That Sandra Gidley be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr Paul Burstow be added to the Committee.[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION
	  
	Pharmacies

George Osborne: I wish to present a petition on behalf of many hundreds of my constituents who want to preserve their local pharmacies and safeguard the services that they provide to the local communities that I represent. I am delighted that a Health Minister is present to hear the petition.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the residents of Wilmslow, Nether Alderley, Northwich, Barnton, Alderley Edge and the surrounding areas
	Declares that they urge the Government to reject the Office of Fair Trading proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions.
	The Petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to call on the Government to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continued services to local communities.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS (CHESHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Derek Twigg.]

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for granting me this debate about the needless and deeply resented closure of Cheshire's three excellent community health councils.
	This is a case of the Government springing on the country a final decision, as at paragraph 10.35 on page 95 of the NHS plan, which was published in July 2000, just as the House rose for the summer recess, as it happensan amazing coincidence. In the plan, the Government said:
	community health councils will be abolished and funding redirected to help fund the new Patient Advocate and Liaison Service and the other new citizens empowerment mechanisms.
	On 15 November 2000, during Prime Minister's questionsor PMPs, as they are more commonly known these days

George Osborne: PMPs?

Stephen O'Brien: Yes: Prime Minister's porkies. I asked the Prime Minister the following question:
	Is the Prime Minister aware that his proposals to scrap community health councilsindependent watchdogs for NHS patients, such as Cheshire Central and Chester and Ellesmere Portare bitterly opposed by my constituents, patients and staff? Will he drop those plans?
	He replied, most sincerely:
	I am aware that there is bitter opposition, which is why the proposals are being consulted on. If he goes round the country, however, the hon. Gentleman will find that people in certain areas do not believe that community health councils have been as effective as they might be. It is precisely because we want to consult that we have issued the health plan. We will report back to the House in due course on the consultation.[Official Report, 15 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 937.]
	Later that day, the Prime Minister's office briefed all the journalists and regional media. Lo and behold, on the following Monday I received a three-page letter from the Prime Minister in which he had to retract his statement to the House. Of course, he did not come here to explain: he just sent me a personal letter, which started Dear Stephen and ended Yours ever, Tonynot that I had ever met him beforein which he had to admit that there had not been prior consultation leading up to the Government's decision cavalierly to scrap community health councils. The letter said:
	I thought it would be helpful if I clarified the nature of the consultation on which we are currently engaged . . . Our proposals mean that Community Health Councils are to be abolished, subject to legislation . . . We have now embarked on a process of consultation to involve key stakeholders, including the Association of Community Health Councils in England and Wales and Community Health Council staff and members in developing the detail of these new arrangements . . . This process will build on the best practice from Community Health Councils and others.
	He concluded:
	This better describes the consultation I alluded to in my answer during Prime Minister's Question time.
	I believe that the campaign that ensued was the result of deep anxiety about that extraordinary retraction and doublespeak, which was exposed the following week in a Westminster Hall debate that I was fortunate enough to secure. A long campaign followed.
	Does that all sound rather familiar to the Minister? Was not the Prime Minister's botched Cabinet reshuffle yet another case of, Here we go again: decision first, consultation to follow?
	Two and a half years later, what has it all come to? It is a tale of woeful incompetence by this Governmentyet again, under Labour, patients last, Government shambles first. In Cheshire, we are losing three very good CHCsChester and Ellesmere Port, Cheshire Central and Macclesfield, all with excellent professional and volunteer staff who are well known to my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), Congleton (Ann Winterton), Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), all of whose constituents have cause at times to use hospitals in Cheshire and therefore need those independent and valued services. At least, they did, until the Government put them on death row. Now that their execution has been drawn out for a further three months from 1 September to 1 December, it is typical that under this Prime Minister all the Ministers responsible have moved on ahead of their shambolic mistakesnamely, the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) and, most recently, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy). I dare say that the hapless new Minister has been sent to defend the decision, yet the only remaining member of the Government who is still responsible for the chaos and confusion is the Prime Minister himself. He should be here justifying why he has not got the replacements for community health councils up and running on time.
	What is really important to patients who often still feel vulnerable and are in continuing need of NHS treatment is an independent and experienced body, as the CHCs in Cheshire have been, to give them the trust, the confidence and, above all, the confidentiality to chart their way through the self-defensive nature of the NHS. That is what patients need when things go wrong, as is inevitable in any organisation, especially the biggest in Europe. That is a blunt fact: it is not to decry the doctors, the nurses and all the staff. At the moment, the Government are so fearful of any criticism of the NHS that they want to take the CHCs away because an independent voice might just expose the truth, which is not what they are keen to hear.

Nicholas Winterton: As my hon. Friend knows, I have tremendous respect for the CHC in Macclesfield, which has been staffed by professionals, and to which many local people have given up a great deal of time. Is not the truth of the matter that the Government have been frightened of the success and efficiency of the CHCs and the way in which they have represented the best interests of patients?

Stephen O'Brien: Indeed it is. Given that there are more than 100 CHCs across the country, it is inevitable that the performance will be patchy, but we have excellent CHCs in Cheshire. There was no need for the Government to throw out excellence for the sake of dogma, or to try to put something in its place simply because they could rely on one or two examples that were not up to the excellent standard set by Cheshire.
	Another reason why the Labour Government said they wanted to scrap CHCs was to bring in more local community representation in their replacements. The Government have ditched that provision in their recent legislative proposals and, worse, removed the mandatory requirement for local patients forums to monitor their local trusts. So far, the Government have made no resources available for this monitoring role. I have received a letter from the chief officer of Chester and Ellesmere Port CHC, Mr. Geoff Ryall-Harvey, who says:
	You will be aware that the scrutiny and monitoring function of CHCs should be taken over by Local Authority Overview and Scrutiny Committees. The Cheshire CHCs have worked very closely with Cheshire County Council and the County Council has developed an excellent proposal to set up their OSC structure. Unfortunately, the Department of Health has been extremely vague over the months about the detailed arrangements for the function of OSCs and, particularly, about what resources might be available. We have now been informed that the establishment and operation of an OSC is a power and not a duty.
	So there is no obligation to replace the CHCs, which were already functioning very well.
	Mr. Ryall-Harvey's letter continues:
	We are concerned that in the absence of new funding for OSCs they will simply not be established in many areas. In Cheshire, having regard to the County Council's
	various priorities
	it is likely to delay its progress in establishing an OSC until these difficulties are resolved.
	He goes on to say that that is probably the case across the country. He continues:
	You will recall that OSCs were part of the package that the Government offered in order to get its legislation on the abolition of CHCs through the Commons and the Lords last year.
	He is particularly tilting at the various Labour rebels who were determined to give this matter a bit of attention, but who were bought off. However, this provision at least became part of the package. He goes on:
	I would suggest that if parliamentarians had known that these particular measures for the replacement of CHCs were an option and not a duty then they would not have withdrawn their opposition. I also seem to recall that the Government gave an undertaking that CHCs would not be replaced until there were robust new structures in place to take on the various aspects of their role. Does this mean that CHCs will remain in those areas where the local Social Services Authority has not set up an OSC?
	He then asks
	whether it will be possible to make the Minister honour his earlier promises.
	Of course, I exonerate the present Minister from having to live up to the promises made on this subject by the string of Ministers who have preceded him. Given that all this started with the Prime Minister having to correct an answer that he gave me at Prime Minister's Question Time, the precedent is not good, however.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I am only sorry that the Prime Minister has not turned up to listen to it. Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents have written to me to say that they are not sure who they will be able to complain to once the CHCs go? There is considerable confusion among the people I represent as to exactly what the Government have in mind to replace CHCs.

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. and neighbouring Friend makes an exceptionally important and valid point. Indeed, my constituents have expressed the same concern. Part of the problem is that it is not only potentially vulnerable patients, but the whole country that feels that it has been duped yet again by the Government on this issue.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has said:
	The Government has utterly betrayed CHCs, those who work in and depend on them, and those who accepted at face value the Government's promises on what would replace them . . . The abolition of CHCs is not only unwelcome, but indefensible. The morale of GPs and other health professionals is known to be at an all time low. Removing an established, successful and independent method for patients to raise concerns is hardly likely to improve matters. Worse still, to do so out of spite, in order to silence a potential critic of Government policy, adds insult to injury. Patients' Forums will
	of course, that is now may, rather than will
	be acting as monitors, and reporting back to Trusts. This does not constitute a direct relationship with the patient. And we know from the Government that PALS will not be a complaints service. Labour doesn't care about patients' rights. The NHS can be a bewildering institution, and it is absolutely vital that patients are able to navigate their way through the maze. Having to work out which of sixteen bodies they should turn to will be hugely unhelpful.
	This precisely confirms the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton.

Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that patients should have confidence in the national health service and in the services that are provided locally? Does he agree that the Government have kicked this issue into touch by getting rid of the one body that has been effective in putting forward the fears of patients, and, so far as we know, replacing it with absolutely nothing? Will this not be most damaging to the confidence of patients?

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only do the replacements lack independence, but CHCs did good work on the casualty watch survey, monitoring the position on trolleys and beds. That was part of their tremendous added value. They were able to give patients, often vulnerable patients, the feeling that they could have confidence in the NHS but that was only because it was accountable through an independent body.
	While I believe that the Government's decision to scrap CHCs has always been stubborn, spiteful and wrong-headed, we have to move to the present crisis as closure looms. With staff and volunteers managing casework and doing their best to secure an orderly transition, the Government are acting in a crass and totally incompetent manner, as predicted, and as predictable as the Government's shambles and incompetence on their tax credit system.
	In politics, it is said that there are no rewards for saying, I told you so but perhaps the Minister, the media and vulnerable patients throughout the country, especially my constituents in Cheshire and those of my hon. Friends in other parts of Cheshire and Shropshire, will listen to Mrs. Jean French, chief officer of the Cheshire Central CHC. She wrote to me on 5 June and said:
	Dear Stephen
	Whitehall FarceFinal Act
	You've no doubt heard that, yet again, CHCs have been seriously disrupted, distressed and dismayed by a ministerial decision.
	In the light of criticism of the gap between the closure of CHCs and the coming on-line of Patients' Forums, a decision has been taken not to concentrate resources on developing the new system but to waste money requiring CHCs to continue to fulfil their statutory duties for three months beyond the announced closure date.
	This smacks of unbelievable incompetence.
	Yet again, we were not informed in a proper manner. Staff had been told they would receive redundancy notices by the end of May in line with the closure of CHCs on 1 September. When these did not arrive by 31 May, we suspected a problem. We were then left speculating what was happening until yesterday, 4 June when it was announced that the new closure date would be 1 December.
	As you would expect from any reasonably efficient organisation, CHCs, having been given 6 months notice of closure at the end of January 2003, embarked on a sensible, structured exit strategy. This is well underway now. Some staff have left for new jobs; files are being sorted through for shredding or archiving; contracts for equipment on lease have been given notice of termination; final monitoring projects have been written-up and submitted to Trusts for comment and action. We have a farewell event for members booked for mid-July. By ironic coincidence, our final Annual Report came back in first draft from the printer yesterday. Also yesterday, we held what should have been our final public meeting!
	This process cannot now be reversed. We have reached the end of our monitoring and visit programme before the summer break for members. July and August were to have been spent clearing the office. The community drugs team is waiting for our premises to be vacated so they can have more office space for their expanding staff.
	Three further months 'to continue the monitoring function' would be a farce. Some CHC Members are likely to resign in protest. Others will become members of local authority Health Scrutiny Committeesanother of the mechanisms set up
	partly
	to replace CHCs. They believe this makes them ineligible for continued membership of the CHC. (The Minister has not addressed this point.) We have been told not to take on any more NHS complaints work after the end of May. This instruction has not been countermanded
	by the Department of Health.
	A national Independent Complaints Advocacy Service was promised from 1 September. Do we restart complaints work now? Will there be a new service in September? (The Minister has not addressed these points.)
	I enclose a copy of the Minister's letter to CHC Staff. He says he has decided 'to make the position absolutely
	can hon. Members believe this?
	unassailable'. Whose position and 'unassailable' from whom? Is he trying to protect himself from criticism?
	That is not me speaking but someone who is deeply affected by the Government's cack-handed attempts to try to manage their way out of a deeply embarrassing and needless problem. She goes on:
	Since the announcement of abolition in July 2000 which you will remember well, I have lost four members of staff, one of them a temporary replacement. I am lucky to have one member of staff still with me but there are CHCs with one or no members of staff. Also, I am lucky in having 20 loyal Members who have wanted to see the CHC through to the end but it is absurd for the Minister to pretend we can fulfil our statutory duties for a further 3 months. Remaining in existence would be mere tokenism in order for the Minister to save face.
	Remaining in existence would also be a waste of public money. 700 staff will have to be paid for a further 3 months with more of them becoming entitled to redundancy payments during this time. (Staff who were taken on after the abolition announcement are now entitled to redundancy payments!!)
	The extra three months mean that public money has to be allocated, properly, but because of the Government's incompetence, the whole thing will cost taxpayers more. Mrs. French continues:
	The CHC budget for this year is shared with the new Commission for Patient  Public Involvement in Health. Money spent retaining CHCs as a token gesture would be money lost to the Commission for developing the new systems. This does not make sense.
	She then mentions the appalling upheaval, disappointment and deep distress that have been caused. She says:
	We can have no trust in the competence of current decision-making in the Department of Health. The only reason can be that they see CHCs as too insignificant to care about. They are trading on the goodwill of caring volunteers. It is not acceptable.
	The Minister has the power to change his mind . . . He has done it once. Dare he
	the new Minister
	be brave enough and sensible enough to do it again?
	She adds:
	Please, if you can . . . make use of this letter in any way to expose this government incompetence or to forward the cause of CHCs by arguing for a dignified and professional exit on 1 September this year!
	That letter deserved a public airing, given this absolute outrage from the Government.
	I replied to Jean French's letter, pointing out that the appalling way in which she had been dealt with was in stark contrast with Labour Ministers repeated claims of how much they value those who work in the NHS. Such comments lie ill in their mouths in the light of their actions in relation to CHCs.
	At a stakeholders' meeting involving the Department of Health, the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, CHCs and trade unions, Sharon Grant, the chairman of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Healththe Government's supposed flagship replacementdid not turn up. Instead, the commission sent along someone who had been in her job for only eight days. What sort of commitment does that reveal on the part of a Government-created commission to deliver on the Government's promise to learn from the knowledge of CHCs' experienced staff? Despite what the Prime Minister said to me in November 2000, the commission has refused invitations from ACHCEW to discuss the transition. Now that they are being killed by this Government, CHCs want an effective transition, with a work programme that the commission must, in any case agree with the Department of Health. But no, this Government have ditched 28 years worth of the dedicated knowledge and experience of CHC staff without a carejust as they ditched 1,400 years of constitutional experience by trying to scrap the post of Lord Chancellor, botching the process in doing so. Even a trade union representative said today that he has never seen such a process handled this badly.
	Things could have been different; there could have been negotiation and the process could have been orderly. The prolongation of the death of CHCs has led to more than the bitterness of 2000; now, there is real anger. What has it all been for? One need only read the miserable answers given by the former Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham to the Chairman of the Health Committee on 15 May. The hon. Gentleman admitted that patient advice and liaison services were at the front of the new system; however, they are not even independent. After ringing more than 100 areas in the past week in respect of PALs, ACHCEW found that just 51 have any form of telephone answering system. Of those, the telephone number given for independent complaints waslo and beholdthat for CHCs.
	This is a travesty of decision making, and an illustration of the worst sort of administrative incompetence by this Government. My constituents, the people of Cheshire and those in the country as a whole will conclude that this Government's brutal, chaotic, stubborn and arrogant approach to the prolonged death of CHCs typifies all the reasons why the Government have breached the trust of the people; indeed, they care even less that they have done so. They should be giving a wholehearted apology, and agreeing to an inquiry in order to learn the lessons from this appalling administrative incompetence.

Stephen Ladyman: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on securing this debate. I know that this is an issue in which he has taken great interest; indeed, he has pursued it on several occasions. I am also grateful to him for giving me my first opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box. If one is to get over first night nerves, it is better to do so in the calm environment of an Adjournment debate than in the bear pit of Question Time. I was not quite so keen on his description of the reshuffle as botched, however; from my point of view it was astute and far-sighted. Nor was I too keen on his describing me as hapless, but I suppose that that fits with the description of me in the Daily Mirror as obscure.
	The hon. Gentleman raised several issues of concern relating to community health councils in Cheshire that I shall try to deal with in the time available. If I do not manage to deal with them all, I will give him answers if he writes to me about them. Indeed, I shall certainly read the account of our debate to check whether I missed anything that I should have dealt with.
	I should perhaps remind the House about what we are doing and why we are doing it. Several of those who intervened gave me the impression that they are perhaps not fully aware of the full range of methods that we are putting in place to involve patients. Because the national health service is publicly funded, in our view the public have the right to be involved and consulted about how services are delivered.
	Through the new arrangements, the Government are moving the NHS into a new era of patient involvement whereby patients themselves are the watchdogs of the NHS. In future, involving the public will become the norm.
	In the past, the community health councils have indeed been the principal NHS watchdog for nearly 30 years. Frankly, however, empowering the public to speak up for themselves or providing opportunities for them to do so was never part of the CHCs' remit. A CHC might have found mechanisms to do so in some areas, but not in others. It is also worth pointing out that CHCs never had an obligation to follow up complaints on behalf of patients. Again, they did it very well in some areas, and not so well or not at all in others.
	Our programme of improvement addresses issues of influence, control and accountability for patients and the public across the NHS and beyond. We do not underestimate the task of ensuring that patients and the public have greater influence and control. Change will not happen overnight. Our aim is to put in place a programme that will stand the test of time. Neither do I underestimatein response to what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) saidthe work that CHCs have done, nor the quality of the contribution made by some CHC teams, including the Cheshire team, in the past. We expect much of the expertise and knowledge of staff and members to be of benefit to the new system.
	However, the programme of change aims to achieve a cultural shift in which patient and public involvement is real and meaningful, so it will have to be more than just passing on knowledge and experience. The new mechanisms for patient and public involvement will enable patients to be as involved as they want to be in decisions about their care and enable communities to be involved in their local health service in a way that they have hitherto been unable to do.

George Osborne: The Minister is new to the job and the civil servants have not yet got their claws into him. Surely he does not believe the rubbish that he is reading out to us. Should he not take an early ministerial decision and restore CHCs, at least in Cheshire.

Stephen Ladyman: No, I should not take that decision, because I honestly believe that the new system leaves us with a range of mechanisms for involving the public and will, for the first time, allow them to stand up and have their say in a way that was not possible with CHCs.
	If I explain the various steps that we are taking, perhaps Opposition Members will become more convinced. The key is to put the patient at the centre of everything that the NHS does. In that way, we are trying to deliver our modernisation programme as set out in the NHS plan and we also want to respond to the Bristol Royal Infirmary inquiry report, which recommended representation of patient interests on the inside of the NHS and at every level. That is exactly what we have put in place.
	The new system for patient and public involvement system will be achieved through trust, community and national arrangements, which have already started. The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, in operation since 1 January, will represent the patients' voice nationally and establish its nine regional offices. It is the first ever national body representing patients. Local authority overview and scrutiny committees will be scrutinising the NHS, and they have had those powers since January 2003. That is also a new power and it has been long sought by local councils. Speaking as a former local councillor, I know that it is a power and a duty that local councils have wanted for a long timeand they will have it in the future.
	The NHS will also carry out its new duty to involve and consult the public, which has been a legal requirement since January 2003. Patient advice and liaison services have been in place for some time now and exist in almost all trusts. Again, PALS are a new organisation. In Cheshire, for example, PALS are in place in many NHS truststhe Cardiothoracic Centre, North Cheshire hospitals, the Cheshire and Wirral partnership, the Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology, the Countess of Chester, the Mersey Regional ambulance service, the Eastern Cheshire trust and others. In addition, primary care trusts in Halton, Birkenhead and Wallasey, Bebington and West Wirral, Cheshire West and Central Cheshire all have PALS in place.
	In addition, we will have a new structured monitoring of the NHS by the Commission for Health Improvement and by patient environment and action teams. There will also soon be independent support for complainants from the independent complaint advocacy services. Pilots are running already in 60 per cent. of the country. A new national system is planned from September. That is new, and part of legislation.
	A national helpline has been set up by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, which will provide advice, information and signposting for the public about where to get independent complaint and advocacy services and other support. Again, that will be new. The local network providers, supporting patients' forums, will act as one-stop shops for patients and they will be in place from September and will also be established by the CPPIH. The new patients forumsone for each of the 571 trusts will be in place from December to monitor and review the NHS and do much more. In other words, more than 500 patient-centred bodies will be set up to replace the180 CHCs.
	NHS trusts and primary care trusts will have patient advice and liaison services, providing on-the-spot help and information about health services. In addition, they tell people about the independent complaints advocacy services that are available. PALS are already up and running in all but a handful of trusts. Patients' forums will be set up for every NHS trust and PCT to influence the day-to-day operation of health services by the trust. The commission has committed to have those in place across the country by 1 December.
	The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will establish, support and facilitate the co-ordination of patients' forums. The forums of PCTs will, in due course, when they have settled down in their role, have the responsibility to provide independent complaints advocacy services and commission them where appropriate. In each community, patients' forums will be a key resource for local people, helping and supporting community groups and promoting better public involvement.

Stephen O'Brien: The Minister has described the aspirations for what should come after CHCs, but that has been delayed. What really matters is the manner in which the whole issue has been handled, and all that people want to hear is an apology for all the distress and upset.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman should think about who we were responding to when we extended the life of CHCs by three months. Among many others, it was the Opposition, here and in the other place, who said that we should extend the life of the CHCs by three months. The Government's view was that we would have a structure in place by 1 September to replace the CHCs, but the Opposition said, Do something extra for the transition. Try to take extra steps. So we put in place a belt and braces process and extended the CHCs for three months
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.